Faith in Jesus

Jesus's mealtime conversation during his last supper included some bitter news for his disciples.  "Where I am going, you cannot come."  (John 13:33)  The one they thought would set up shop on earth as a new Davidic king in Israel was breaking up camp and leaving.  He told them, "You know the way to the place where I am going." (14:4)

Thomas, the famous doubter, blurted out, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" (v. 5)

In answer Jesus gave his famous proclamation: "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you really knew me, you would know the Father as well.  From now on, you do know him and have seen him."  (vv. 6-7)

Philip said in his confusion what many cynical skeptics would say now, "Show us the Father and that will be enough for us."  (v. 8)

Now Jesus expands.  Philip does not take Jesus explanation in verse 7 at face value.  He wants more.  Fortunately Jesus doesn't just slap him and say, "Believe more!"  He explained to Philip and us how we can come to see the Father.

His questions to Philip were biting, however.  "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? . . .  How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?  Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"  (vv. 9, 10)  He explained that Philip doesn't really know him.  Unfortunately, I think we don't do a lot better than Philip.

stmatthewsjc

Jesus uses three expressions to explain his relationship with the Father.  "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."  (v. 9)  Jesus is the face of God.  "I am in the Father and the Father is in me."  (v. 10)  Jesus shares a life, an existence with God.  "The words I say to you are not just my own.  Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing the work."  (v. 10)  Jesus has the teaching of God.

This is the foundation of our faith.  "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me."  On this everything rests.  This is not merely part of an understanding about Trinitarian belief, it is about the very nature of God.  Jesus was God-in-the-flesh (God incarnate) or he wasn't.  What Jesus said, what he did, and how he was were all as God would (and did) do as a person.

So what's the big deal?  It's the difference between Jesus healing and helping as a nice guy or Jesus healing and helping as the expression of what God did, does, and always will do.  It's the difference between Jesus having some nice or helpful words and Jesus speaking words that are life, truth, and the very bread of human existence.  It's the difference between Jesus being a pitiful martyr or Jesus drawing the whole world to himself as a deliverer from death and evil, a savior from the corruption of sin, and the ultimate example of where each person must go to find God.

Disbelief and skepticism about this kind of trust and belief in Jesus are the water we swim in.  But, what if the face of Jesus is the face of God?  How might we feel toward him?  How might we relate to him?

What if Jesus shared a life with God when he was on earth?  Could we imagine working side-by-side with God, so that we might say, "It is [Jesus], living in me, doing the work"?  How might we walk through our days?  How might we understand our purpose?

What if Jesus had the teaching of God?  Perhaps he might have know just what we needed to hear to live the life God would love and that we would love as well?  Perhaps each of his words as present in the created order and in the Bible would bring life, love, peace, and joy?  Might he be the Master Teacher of all time?

Although lack of faith may be most noticeable through a lack of confidence, its source comes more from lack of knowledge.  Understanding and accepting God's nature will bring about confidence.  Jesus expanded his teaching to Philip because Philip lacked understanding.  Where Philip's (and our) understanding fail, he gives grace and power to grasp what we need to know.  Faith stretches out beyond knowledge, but also pulls knowledge along.  Greater faith yields greater knowledge and, to some degree, greater knowledge yields greater faith.

As I live in faith and trust of God, I learn more about him.  As I learn more about God and from God, I find faith easier to exercise.  Jesus explains to Philip on this principle, I believe.  In the end, it challenges me to think a bit harder about what I believe and what I don't believe and what Jesus taught me to believe most of all.  I find that from faith informed by knowledge, confidence comes.

Lord, let me see your face.  Let me see the life you want me to live.  Let me come to know your teaching more deeply.  Let me do this in your name, by faith in you informed by knowing you, and byu loving you.  Amen.

Jesus Withdrew

"Jesus withdrew."  (Mark 2:7-12)  Perhaps it's not right to leave that quote hanging like that.  Perhaps I'm going too far.  I find great hope in this: Jesus withdrew.

The Pharisees hammered him with, "Why does this fellow talk like that?  He's blaspheming! . . .  Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? . . .  How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but yours are not? . . .  Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"  (vv. 7, 16, 18, 24)  Their questions were meant to accuse and eventually Jesus "looked at them in anger, . . . deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts."  (3:5)  The kingdom of God had made it great appearance through him and all they could worry about were their rules and positions!  Even in the midst of such a great showing of power, he showed his love.  Jesus withdrew.

Was he scared?  Not likely.  Maybe he was scared for those who plotted against his life.  Maybe he was giving them a break.  Maybe he'd challenged them enough for one day.  Maybe he hid from them so they could hide from him.  Jesus withdrew.

thirdheaventraveler

My heart leaps at another thought, though.  "Jesus withdrew with his disciples."  The thought of a Savior who saved himself by going to his God and his Father gives me ease.  The thought of a Teacher who would seek to teach all people by teaching a few gives me hope.  The thought of a Lord who was not driven by his greatness, but showed his greatness by leading his disciples into rest gives me peace.  The thought of a Friend who wanted to be near those he knew and loved to show what friendship he could have with everyone disperses my loneliness.  Jesus withdrew.

Such a man is for me.  Funny that he never had to gather a crowd, but drew all people to himself.  His healings and exorcisms were hidden gifts rather than publicity stunts.  It was almost like he never wanted to draw a crowd, but he had compassion on them all.  I can see it in these words: Jesus withdrew.

Lord, take me with you.  Let me withdraw as well as walk among the crowds, but let me be your disciple.  Call me to you.  Where you go, let me come.  I need only be with you.  Amen.

Trinity Monotheism: the Soul of God

The alleged problem is that if only the Trinity exemplifies the complete divine nature, then the way in which the persons are divine is less than fully divine. . . .  The persons of the Trinity are not divine in virtue of instantiating the divine nature. For presumably being triune is a property of the divine nature (God does not just happen to be triune); yet the persons of the Trinity do not have that property.  (Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-11-08). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (p. 590). Intervarsity Press. Kindle Edition.)

Somehow this moves me.  I have never thought of the Trinity being the only way God could be.  I thought that God just happened to be triune.  With this understanding, I see that the Trinity is a ground-breaking truth.  Being triune is a property of being deity, so in Christian thought, a non-triune God, as in unitarian monotheism, cannot be God at all.

Trinity monotheism is the understanding that only the Trinity is fully divine and fully deity.  The persons of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are parts of a whole.  None of them is fully deity on their own any more than my body or my mind is all of myself.  My mind and body are who I am, but not fully.  Each person of the Trinity is a full person, with spirit and mind, but not the fullness of God in themselves.

What moves me is to understand that the image of God includes his triune nature.  The nature of God is love and love does not exist in an isolated individual.  As Moreland writes:

We may ask if there are any positive arguments which might be offered on behalf of the plausibility of that doctrine. We close with an argument that a number of Christian philosophers have defended for God’s being a plurality of persons. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another. But who is that other? . . .  God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.  (ibid, 594-595)

The Trinity becomes more than a doctrine to fight over.  It is a reality to live in.  God created us to love him and other people as he loves in himself.  A God who is merely one cannot have such love as his nature, but only as his demand.  In Christian thought, prior to people loving God because he first loved them is the explanation of God's nature: God is love. (1 John 4)  He did not need us to love, but created us for love and out of love.

The love that a non-triune deity would express falls short of what the Trinity expresses.  It inevitably turns into mere self-interest or needy dependence.  God's command to love is not arbitrary, nor does God need the creation in order to love.  God is a rich, vibrant, loving community in himself.

Another way to understand this is

The question of what makes several parts constitute a single object rather than distinct objects is a difficult one. But in this case perhaps we can get some insight by reflecting on the nature of the soul. We have argued that souls are immaterial substances and have seen that it is plausible that animals have souls. . . . Souls come in a spectrum of varying capacities and faculties. Higher animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins possess souls more richly endowed with powers than those of iguanas and turtles. What makes the human soul a person is that the human soul is equipped with rational faculties of intellect and volition that enable it to be a self-reflective agent capable of self-determination. Now God is very much like an unembodied soul; indeed, as a mental substance God just seems to be a soul. We naturally equate a rational soul with a person, since the human souls with which we are acquainted are persons. But the reason human souls are individual persons is because each soul is equipped with one set of rational faculties sufficient for being a person. Suppose, then, that God is a soul which is endowed with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. Then God, though one soul, would not be one person but three, for God would have three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality and volition, as social trinitarians maintain. God would clearly not be three discrete souls because the cognitive faculties in question are all faculties belonging to just one soul, one immaterial substance. God would therefore be one being that supports three persons, just as our own individual beings each support one person. Such a model of Trinity monotheism seems to give a clear sense to the classical formula “three persons in one substance.”  (ibid, pp. 593-594)

I had thought about this before, but only found it in writing in Moreland's book.  Why should it matter?  Because the Creator makes things that is in his nature to make.  Further, each person shares in the image of the Creator.  The nature of the Creator becomes the place where people can understand their own natures.  Soul, body, mind, spirit, and community become more than concepts, but realities.  In these days, the soul has lost its place.  People are seen as pieces thrown together rather than as a created soul, "something that contains and unifies all the various sensory experiences, thoughts, behaviors, and relationships of the person into a unitary continuous whole."

This inspires me to seek my soul and take care of it.  "Recently, at the Knowing Christ conference in Santa Barbara, Dallas [Willard] said, 'If you get very quiet, you might notice the soul.' Parker Palmer once compared the soul to a wild deer; it flies from noise and action and movement. You have to wait, and wait, and perhaps it will make an appearance."  (Barczi, Ben, gospelmind.org/2013/03/08/parts-soul/)  Perhaps I will being to wait.

Lord, let my life be as yours.  Let me soul be still, so I might find it and allow you to renew it.  Amen.

The New for the New

WHAT'S NEW?

No, he pour new wine into new wine skins.  (Mark 2:22)

 "New" makes its appearance on labels of products as "new and improved" or "new look."  It also shows up as "brand new" and "as good as new" in the area of resale.  Unfortunately, this sort of marketing is not isolated to the sale of candy or used bicycles.  This concept of "new" has crept into our spiritual lives as individuals and communities.

Such newness follows our worship of human progress and technology.  Last year's computer is not as good as this years model.  The latest fashions are always better than the ones of last year or the last decade.  Even the nostalgic appeal to "classic" or "original" is based on having greater choices and variety - something new all the time.

It's not all bad, but it has little to do with the new wine that Jesus wants to give to us.  Jesus wants to fulfill rather than replace.  What is old cannot hold the new, but what is old points to what is new and lays the ground for it.  The new wine is Jesus's new teaching, which is not confined to a book, but lives and moves in and through and with us.

This new wine is new because it is constantly growing.  It is vital.  It is living.  Jesus's teaching continues and finds life through the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who will remind us of everything Jesus said and lead us into truth.  Such a new living wine cannot be contained by the same containers; they give out and burst eventually.  No, he pours new wine into new wine skins.

Jesus's disciples are the new wine skins.  They are the ones made new through a living, conversational relationship with Jesus and his Father through the Holy Spirit.  Their lives make more and more room for God rather than shrinking and hardening by trusting in the correct professed beliefs or in the right good actions or in the best informed community.  Beliefs and actions and community are important, but  they cannot hold the new wine.  Only a discipleship of interactive love with Jesus can hold this new wine.

THE OTHER WINE SKINS

Jesus warns against two alternatives to his teaching and Spirit later in Mark (8:15).  He tells his disciples to watch out for the "yeast" or the teaching of the Pharisee and of Herod.  Pharisees taught about a life of service to God, full of deeds good in themselves and under the protection of the Jewish religious institution.  Self-righteousness was their trademark.  Hypocrisy was the outcome.  A life devoted to their teaching was one where they found themselves doing everything so that others would see.  To them Jesus said, "Clean the inside of the dish and the outside will come clean as well."

The teaching of Herod was one that accommodated to the world they lived in.  He was careful to stay on good terms with those around him, especially important people, like rulers.  His life stood in opposition to what was moral and right, but he tried to buy support through building temples for the religious people.  Unrighteousness was his trademark.  Friendship with the world was the outcome.  Such teaching resulted being darkened in the mind and cut off from the life of God.

Self-righteousness and unrighteousness seem to promise "new wine."  One with the spiritual fads, good deeds, or orthodox practice, the other with new pleasures and personal "freedom."  Neither delivers.  Communities that thrive on such teaching and practices reap the same benefits: falsehood and emptiness.

utusanpenasyamimi.blogspot.com

I am too easily swayed by these paths, especially self-righteousness.  Becoming a new wine skin seems so much harder until I see or experience the fruits of the other ways.  If I take the other paths, I inevitably find myself backtracking and unlearning what I've been learned.  Whether I find myself drawn to professing the right beliefs to be right with God or to doing good deeds for God without coming to know God himself or to taking care of the church so it will take care of me, I find they leave me empty, since God will not fill such wine skins with his new wine.  Jesus's teaching and His Spirit can only reside in his apprentices, otherwise I find myself broken and worn out, unable to sustain the life he longs to fill me with.

Lord, re-new me today.  Yesterday's thoughts and feelings and desires will not carry me through today. Give me this day your daily bread of renewal and transformation so that my life might be a holding place for your Spirit of love, joy, and peace.  Amen.

Made by God and Loving It

It is not an abstraction called Humanity that is to be saved.  It is you, . . . your soul, and in some sense yet to be understood, even your body, that was made for the high and holy place.  All that you are. . . every fold and crease of your individuality was devised to fit God as a glove fits a hand.  All that intimate particularity which you are can hardly grasp yourself, much less communicate to your fellow creatures, is no mystery to Him.  He made those ins and outs that He might fill them.  Then He gave your soul so curious a life because it is the key designed to unlock that door, of all the myriad doors in Him.  (C. S. Lewis, penciled in the flyleaf of his copy of von Hugel's Eternal Life)

What if Lewis was writing not to some imaginary hearer, but to himself?  What if he was reminding himself of his particular worth to God?

I could see myself doing this.  I spent a long time in college saying to myself, "I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made and Your works are wonderful."  (Psalm 139:14)  I guess that shows one of my struggles: low self-esteem.

Yet even that low self-esteem has been a place where God can grow something.  My self-loathing exposed to the light of my loving wife and kids brings me pain.  I realize that I "enjoy" it in some strange way, but in the eyes of my family it becomes something terrible and hurtful.

Self-examination and honesty are good.  I guess there is a limit, though.  The limit is where I want to determine my own identity on my own, rather than in the loving arms of God.  I have been long in avoiding him.  It's time to fall.

Lord, why do I try so hard to figure it out on my own?  Why do I purposely plug my ears to your help and encouragement?  Forgive me.  I am tired of being a self-made martyr.  Make me lie down in your green pastures, lead me beside your still waters, restore my soul.  Amen.