https://www.flickr.com/photos/davideji/9217292262/ 

Jesus Christ: Preliminaries in Christology and The Second    Person of The Trinitymore

by  Darryl Wooldridge, PhD

Abstract

Christology is the foundation and center of Christianity. This paper begins a clear and unambiguous presentation of who Christ was in eternity past, whom Christ was when he walked the Earth, and what Christ came to do. Christ’s incarnational life, death, resurrection, and ascension are the foundation of Christology. Without these four events Christology looses its universal reconciliation (Gk. aποκατάστασις πάντως) for all of creation, and Christianity falls into ruin.

The claim that Christ died to reconcile the world rests upon who Christ is. That is, Christology will inform Christian beliefs regarding the all-important work, acceptance, status, and accessibility of aποκατάστασις πάντως as provided by Christ. To be wrong here is to miss the mark and to believe an invention or myth.

Although human words are inadequate, divine revelation in the Bible, as debated and establish by councils, creeds, and doctrine, make great, progressive attempts. As discussed here these include Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity, the Messiah, pre-existence, and co-equality with the Father and Spirit, incarnation, fully God and fully man (the God-man). Jesus lived as a man in every way except that he was without sin. By living without sin, Jesus became the victor to reconcile the world. His resurrection was a seal of God’s acceptance of that victory. He ascended to the right hand of God the Father, and he will soon return to receive his redeemed and have all put under his feet and made right. 

The following is a small survey. Full listing and consideration of all Christology has filled thousands of books, lectures, and fueled multitudinous debates. Christology has occupied the greatest Christian minds for millennia and will continue to do so until Christ returns.

Follow me on https://nwu.academia.edu/DarrylWooldridge

Proleptic spiritual transformation: Living in the not yet

This doctoral work has been removed to make it more accessible in book form as Relationship Is the Transformative space.

Present Practice And Implications

Much of the present day spiritual discipline and practice owes its foundations to the early mystical fathers and mothers and their developments over more than a thousand years (from Origen [c. 180-254] to Catherine of Siena [1347-1389]). The single common practice was to seek a state of prayer without ceasing—to bring themselves into intimate communion and union with God.[1] There are, now, active monasteries and various religious orders that continue this goal, along with other practices, with strict adherence to their predecessors’ ways of life. In fact, there is an evident need for a reapplication or regaining of the early practices, many associated with mysticism. The shallow living of most Christians and the church at large give no alternative to a world’s increasing desire for the spiritual. Spirituality is an increasing awareness and growing industry among the Western satiates and the world’s never-ending have-nots.[2]

The Catholic, Protestant, and various Orthodox churches all have many religious orders, teachers, and practitioners of the mystical ways. Yet there seems to be a dearth of evidence of any general or large examples of encounter with God and subsequent kingdom of God living (Matthew 5-7). Such a living should result from an encounter with the living God. Yet this testimony is lacking in this dark and dieing world. The light and salt of the Christian testimony is too often absent from the affairs of this world and rather supplanted by the abusive and godless powers of this world.

To slake the desires and needs of the multitudes, the church must first begin to answer the departing call of the Lord Jesus Christ: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20 [italics the author’s]). It is such a discipled church—practicing the presence of God and living from the very being of God—which they have experienced. It is such a church peopled with these kinds of disciples that is equipped to make disciples and not simply converts.

Rowan Williams speaks to a profound, but most often overlooked, need among the members of the body of Christ. It is selfless, even self-humbling, and enabling discipline to facilitate the opportunity for others to encounter the life-giving presence of God. He is speaking of discipling.

What if the real criteria for a properly functioning common life, for social existence in its fullness, had to do with this business of connecting each other with life-giving reality, with the possibility of reconciliation or wholeness? What if the deepest threat to life together were standing in the way of another person’s discovery of wholeness by insistent clinging to self-justification? Our success . . . would be measured only in the degree to which those around us were discovering a way to truth and life. . . .[3]

It is a loving of “your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39b) that is illustrated by Williams in these questions. The mystic’s goal is not isolation and only self-serving but rather to be equipped to love God and neighbor. Having missed this mark the mystic’s efforts are simply self-aggrandizement. Facilitating and loving others into the presence of God is being the good neighbor. This is loving “your neighbour as yourself.” Loving God and neighbor is to fulfill the law; it is the disciple’s expression of spiritual 

transformation.

---

[1]I Rowan William, Where God Happens: Discovering Christ in One Another and Other Lessons from the Desert Fathers (Boston, MA: New Seeds, 2005), p.160.

[2]Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality And The Reshaping of Religion in The Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2001), pp. 83, 146-147.

[3]Williams, Where God Happens, p. 25.

Good News (Rob Bell)

If the gospel isn't good news for everybody, then it isn't good news for anybody. And this is because the most powerful things happen when the church surrenders its desire to convert people and convince them to join. It is when the church gives itself away in radical acts of service and compassion, expecting nothing in return, that the way of Jesus is most vividly put on display. To do this, the church must stop thinking about everybody primarily in categories of in or out, saved or not, believer or nonbeliever. Besides the fact that these terms are offensive to those who are the "un" and "non", they work against Jesus' teachings about how we are to treat each other. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor, and our neighbor can be anybody. We are all created in the image of God, and we are all sacred, valuable creations of God. Everybody matters. To treat people differently based on who believes what is to fail to respect the image of God in everyone. As the book of James says, "God shows no favoritism." So we don't either.--Rob Bell

Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the Right: “Cosmos,” Christians, and the Battle for American Science: The real reason conservatives are freaking out about Neil deGrasse Tyson: He's laying bare their worst hypocrisies.

Salon / By Sean McElwee

 151 COMMENTS

The religious right has been freaking out about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” for what feels like an eternity. And, while the theological complaints seem laughable for their rancor and predictability, it’s time we thought harder about what they represent, because the Christian right’s “Cosmos” agita actually indicates a far deeper problem in religious conservatism — the selective acceptance of Enlightenment values. Religious conservatives have selectively adopted the legacy of liberal Enlightenment, from free speech to science, and jettisoned it when it does not suit their narrow ideological aims.

There is a nasty tendency for those arguing for their case to adopt a stance of enlightened empiricism on one issue to devolve into empirical nihilism on another. There is also the habit of shifting from a high praise of liberal values on one issue to utter contempt on another. Of course, our various liberal values will come into conflict frequently and must be weighed, but we must be disturbed at how quickly some, particularly on the religious right, are willing to twist these traditions for their own gain.

The odd conflict of science and religion has come to define modern religious fundamentalism. While most religious people happily accept scientific theories about gravity, claims about the age of Earth are subject to a strange scrutiny by those who believe that the literary creation narratives in the Bible describe actual events.

The scientific consensus about global warming must be untrue, because, as Dr. Innes writes in “Left, Right and Christ,” the world is “not a glass ornament that we might accidentally destroy … we are not capable of destroying it, whether by nuclear weapons or carbon emissions.” Young earth creationism is the ultimate attempt to both accept modern science, but also to deny it. Fundamentalists like Ken Ham argue that the world and laws we currently observe simply bear no resemblance to the past.

In truth, we cannot get fundamentalism without the scientific revolution. Fundamentalism does not exist independently, but rather defines itself in relationship to post-Enlightenment values. It is the odd melding of science and religion that creates fundamentalism — the belief that the Bible is ultimately both a scientific and religious text. Fundamentalists, like the conspiracy theorists they resemble, will build up reams of evidence creating the case for something that can be disproven with a simple logical proposition. Few thinkers have built such an impressive edifice of logic and evidence upon such a thin foundation of speculation.

Dinesh D’Souza, for instance, has taken to using science as proof of religion — he argues, rather absurdly, that the Bible’s explanation of the origins of the universe predates modern science. In his speech at Intelligence Squared, he claims:

When the discovery of the big bang came — this, by the way, was at a time when most scientists believed the universe was eternal, the steady state universe was the prevailing doctrine of American and Western science — so it came as a shock that the universe had a beginning. Why? because, in a way, it wasn’t just that matter had a beginning, but space and time also had a beginning. In other words, this was something that the ancient Hebrews had said thousands of years ago and without conducting a single scientific experiment. By the way, this is not the same as other cosmologies. Other ancient cosmologies posited the universe being fashioned by a kind of carpenter god who made it out of some preexisting stuff, but the ancient Hebrews said, “No, first there was nothing, and then there was a universe.”

But this rhetorical flourish is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the creation narrative, and religion in general. Religion, ultimately, aims at truths deeper than science and trying to apply religious reasoning to the natural world is absurd. Augustine warned as much, telling Christians in “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim” to avoid, “talking nonsense on these topics.”

More worryingly, the idea that a rather tenuous reading of a literary work holds the same weight as centuries of scientific evidence is more than a little absurd. D’Souza is trying to selectively apply science, but without its foundation — empirical, testable, repeatable propositions.

We see here the fundamentalist flaw: a mass of rhetoric, reason and evidence built on the utterly insane proposition that the Old Testament is meant to be a scientific account of the origins of the universe.

The reason any somewhat knowledgeable Christian is frustrated by these debates is that they simply pit one fundamentalist against another. One tries to use science to disprove religion, the other to prove it — both apparently unaware that belief is something that cannot be “proven.” That’s the entire point! Too often, religious excursions into science resemble the thinking of the suicidal people described by Anne Sexton, “They ask only what tool, they never ask why build?” Fundamentalism at its core is the misunderstanding of the proper relationship between science and religion — one practiced just as frequently by atheists as Christians.

Another form of this trend is the co-option of liberal values. The religious right cannot generally be found decrying freedom of speech or freedom of religion, instead they make a selective application of these values — much the way they’ll talk science when you question nuclear power but deny a consensus about evolution or global warming on entirely spurious grounds.

One recent example of this illiberalism was the quickness with which Catholics decried a “Black Mass” at Harvard. The “Black Mass” is merely a satanic parody of the Catholic mass — which, while it may be offensive to some Catholics, is totally harmless in practice. Of course, the idea of Catholics demanding special privileges is not rare, but to be expected; one wonders if Satanist child abusers could claim that their church would deal with the matter internally.

Liberal values are not weighed in a vacuum, but this weighing appears to be something many religious conservatives are incapable of doing. During the Black Mass controversy, Father James Martin appeared on MSNBC and said, “I think to put it in perspective, we could say, how would we feel if they said, ‘we’re going to do a little cultural thing, we’re going to do something that’s anti-Semitic, or racist, or homophobic, just as a cultural experiment, we’re going to set up the reenactment of a lynching …’” Father Martin claims to put the event in perspective, and then does the opposite, equating the merely offensive with an act of white supremacy.

Lynchings were intimately tied to white supremacy in the post-Civil War South — their intention was to establish white hegemony and create a permanent underclass. Lynchings, the Ku Klux Klan and the burning of crosses were either overtly violent or symbolically violent. The reenactment of a lynching would not be acceptable at a liberal university because it would amount to the direct threat of violence to minorities on campus. It would be aimed at suppressing their rights to expression.

One wonders how Father Martin has lived his entire life in the United States and is still capable of making such an odious comparison. The distinction between the merely offensive and what amounts to group libel or defamation is hard to make, but the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that some speech may be more than just offensive, and can therefore be regulated. As Clarence Thomas noted in his correct dissent in Virginia v. Black, “just as one cannot burn down someone’s house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.” Father Martin seems to miss this distinction and believes that he should be protected from ever being criticized or offended.

Hobby Lobby provides another example of the selective use of the liberal tradition. One might find it ironic that Catholics aim to carve out an exception for themselves from laws of general applicability when denying other religions that privilege. But sadly, religious majorities have a long history of understanding the First Amendment diametrically wrong, as a protection of powerful religions rather than weak ones. It is the latter the Founders knew would need special protection (see: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah), not the former.

To both of these claims — that many on the religious right have entirely abandoned the post-WWI liberal consensus of scientific inquiry and Enlightenment values — there are those who would like to say the same about the left. The Economist is quick to point to GMOs as the left’s version of anti-scientific inquiry. Such claims are entirely overblown. More recently, there have been claims that the left is showing the same illiberal tendencies as the right, most notably Michelle Goldberg of the Nation. She argues we are “entering a new era of political correctness,” which she calls “left-wing anti-liberalism.”

While she cites some rather damning movements, they are all fringe movements that have produced pixels but will not bring about change. As Marx once wrote of Communism, “In order to supersede the idea of private property, the idea of communism is enough. In order to supersede private property as it actually exists, real communist activity is necessary.” We might note that the idea of illiberalism is something liberalism must countenance, even though it must be prevented from ever being existent.

And here the threat from the right is far stronger: We have seen free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and rights of due process come under scrutiny at all levels. Workers are being denied even the semblance of control over their labor and women over their bodies. Money is making a mockery of democracy.

What we see is an asymmetric illiberalism. The religious right and some portions of the conservative movement have hijacked Enlightenment values for selective use. A truly deep (almost dogmatic) commitment to free speech, say, that practiced by the ACLU, which will defend the right of neo-Nazis to protest, is not what we find in many conservative circles. Instead, we see an embrace of empiricism when it is good and a rejection when it is bad. We see an embrace of religious freedom for me, but not for thee. Harry Emerson Fosdick preached in 1922:

The present world situation smells to heaven!  And now, in the presence of colossal problems, which must be solved in Christ’s name and for Christ’s sake, the Fundamentalists propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration.  What immeasurable folly!

Well, they are not going to do it; certainly not in this vicinity.  I do not even know in this congregation whether anybody has been tempted to be a Fundamentalist.  Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance. God keep us always so and ever increasing areas of the Christian fellowship; intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty-loving, fair, tolerant, not with the tolerance of indifference, as though we did not care about the faith, but because always our major emphasis is upon the weightier matters of the law.

His words are still more important today. We live in an increasingly connected and multicultural world, and yet many major religions refuse to recognize marginal ones. We also live in a world threatened by global warming, and yet some Christians deny it, even though it has long been a tenet of religion to live in harmony with nature.

Sean McElwee is a writer and researcher of public policy. He blogs at seanamcelwee.com. Follow him on Twitter @seanmcelwee. 

Feeding on Scripture

Reading scripture may seem obvious and rudimentary. Some might think, if an individual is literate, what else is required? Well not everyone is literate. Besides, there seem to be plenty of Bibles available. By the year 2007, over 7.5 billion had been distributed throughout the world. There are approximately seven billion people living. Allowing for the loss of a .5 billion Bibles, that’s at least one Bible for every person on the planet! Just pick up one and go for it. Only about eighteen percent of the world’s population is illiterate. But wait, half of the world’s languages do not yet have a Bible translation at all. If you speak one of those languages, that may be a problem. There does seem to be a clear imbalance in access.

In addition, Americans own more than half of the world’s Bibles. In fact, those Americans, who have Bibles, have an average of three or four per person, including atheists, there is a large portion of the world that does not have even a small section of a Bible. Perhaps to my own shame, to slake my own “need” and desire, I have over sixty Bibles. I have English, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, various translations, and many study versions. Does anyone really need that many Bibles? Well, before I feel compelled to defend myself, let’s leave that discussion for another time.

I am not defending the rather recent (c. 19th century) doctrine of inerrancy. Any argument of "originals" is suspect, but that is another article. However, as is the case, that the whole person is affected by stirring one part, reaching through to persons by the imagination and emotions generated by fiction, story, allegory, and parable, affects the whole person. That is, story, allegory, and parable are some of the means to break through the conscious resistance that often blocks hearing. Such devices are inherent to scripture, inerrancy set aside.

Biblical mission is more of a poem and less of its common use as treatise, more art than science, using feelings and sensibilities to reach the mind to share sympathy, love, and life—it is about God’s beauty (Bushnell, 1976:344). Among the various genres, scripture uses such devices as story, allegory, and parable, in seeking to break through the intransigent ways of thinking that enslave individuals and communities to processing thought as comfortably expected. While scripture must be understood in ethical, logical, and historical ways, it must also be understood in its “aesthetic” (Milbank, 1998:123). It is beauty expressed in story, allegory, and parable.

The Bible can be said to be, in some parts, less of an ethical, logical, and historical focus and more of a teleological pointer even escort. Story, allegory, and parable are common devices found in scripture by which God speaks of deeper and higher truths than are readily seen by simple propositions and historical accounts. This is dressed in the beauty and pleasure of story pointing and reaching for the teleological goals of the creator of the universe particularly the spiritual maturation of humans beginning now. Story, allegory, and parable are used to tell truth and break through staid, stagnant, formalistic-views and beliefs whether they are present in biblical myth or history.

So then, what do we do with all of these Bibles? Well, forty-five percent of Americans adults (mainly Evangelicals) claim to read the Bible at least once a week. And yet only one third of Americans believe the Bible is the word of God. Okay, put aside the statistics. What do all these massive numbers mean to the subject of reading scripture? Well my point is not statistical, that is for sure. In fact you may be able to find better statistics than the ones I have cited. My point is that there is a glut of Bibles available to an extremely large portion of the world, and I am asking how much is being gained with such rich resources?

Any supposed gain is clearly questionable measured by world conditions. Where is the spiritual transformation that should accompany “right” reading and "consumption" of scripture? And of those who read the Bible, even fewer, I suspect by the lack of evidence (my own anecdotal conversations and observations) are actually fed by the words and enjoy their sweetness.

“Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts. . . . How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Jeremiah 15:16; Psalm 119: 103).

We must not read Scripture in the same way we might read the comic strips, our newspapers, or even the best literature. Yes, the Bible is literature, and it can be read as such; however, what we are discussing here is something much deeper and more profound. We are considering the intended purposes of God’s speaking through scripture for his human creatures. Knowledge, history, poetry, ethics, and even wisdom can all be found in scripture. However, God’s desire is for encounter, communion, and intimacy with us. And by this relationship, he hopes to see us reflect his image. And so, although we may query the Bible for knowledge, history, and such, we primarily must look to encounter God through its pages. This encounter brings about transformation: “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

The techniques of hermeneutics (scriptural interpretation) and exegesis (to analyze and explain) will not be discussed here. That is, I am not here after teaching about the ingredients of the meal, about fat and fiber, or how many calories are included. I am exceedingly more interested, here, that we “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8; 1 Peter 2:3).

There are various methods to accomplish this. One well-known technique is lectio divina (divine reading). This and other such techniques are often accompanied by controversy, warning, and fear. Nevertheless, biblical reading does include meditation (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2; 19:14; 104:34; 119:15), memory (Joshua 1:13; Psalm 119:11; Matthew 21:16, 42; John 15:20), response (Exodus 19:8; 24:3; Matthew 7:24; Romans 2:13; James 1:22, 25; 2:14), obedience (Exodus 24:7; Deuteronomy 17:19), and praise (Psalm 56:4, 10; 106:12). Whatever the hesitation, we do not have to bring along the baggage of Eastern mysteries from some of the practices used for scripture reading.

I am not suggesting that we disengage our minds from reading scripture in an esoteric, Gnostic abandonment to whatever decides to enter our souls. I am simply suggesting that we open to the eternal God, creator of the universe and maker of heaven and earth. Listening to God speak through Scripture is not alien. Rather to miss this, renders the reader dull and unresponsive to God. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40). We will be nourished as we feed on the living word of God. For this, deep intention, meditation, and prayer over the words of the Bible are critical. We are mining the very depths of life (John 1:1-4; 6:68).

We are reading scripture for life, and that life is found in God (John 1:4; 5:39-40; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 5:20). “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). So then, however we read scripture, whatever disciplines or technique we use, if we are not gaining life, then we are approaching scripture only partially at best. To use lectio divina, meditation, memorization, imagery, prayer, or any other technique is not as important as touching the author of scripture, the one spoken of in scripture, the one being offered. This is the assurance of safety in our disciplined life.

Emptying or opening to anything or anyone else other than the God of the Bible is safeguarded when we read his scripture and hold him in our hearts and minds as we read or do anything else for that matter. If we do not dishonour God in our approach, he will be pleased to receive us into fellowship and communion. In fact, like a loving father who is happy to see his child bring him a painting that is nothing more than a mess of paint on butcher paper, God is delighted with our messy approaches of love toward him. No matter how mature we may become, we will always be as children in the presence of our Father.

I hope I didn’t disappoint you by not pontificating erudite techniques and profound seminary “secrets” of reading Scripture. If I can encourage some few to enjoy God in scripture, to be fed and nourished by his word through scripture, and to be further conformed to his image by that enjoyment (Romans 8:29; 12:2; 1 Peter 1:14), then I am extremely pleased. And so is our Father. We’ll later talk about the techniques of reading.

Anonymous

On a hot summer day in south Florida, a little boy decided to go for a swim in the old swimming hole behind his house. In a hurry to dive into the cool water, he ran out the back door, leaving behind shoes, socks, and shirt as he went. He flew into the water, not realizing that as he swam toward the middle of the lake, an alligator was swimming toward the shore.

His father, working in the yard, saw the two as they got closer and closer together. In utter fear, he ran toward the water, yelling to his son as loudly as he could. Hearing his voice, the little boy became alarmed and made a u-turn to swim to his father. It was too late. Just as he reached his father, the alligator reached him. . . .

From the dock, the father grabbed his little boy by the arms just as the alligator snatched his legs. . . . That began an incredible tug-of-war between the two. The alligator was much stronger than the father, but the father was much too passionate to let go.

A farmer happened to drive by, heard his screams, raced from his truck, took aim and shot the alligator.

Remarkably, after weeks and weeks in the hospital, the little boy survived. His legs were extremely scarred by the vicious attack of the animal. And, on his arms, were deep scratches where his father's fingernails dug into his flesh in his effort to hang on to the son he loved.

The newspaper reporter who interviewed the boy after the trauma, asked if he would show him his scars. The boy lifted his pant legs. And then, with obvious pride, he said to the reporter, "But look at my arms. I have great scars on my arms, too. I have them because My Dad wouldn't let go."

You and I can identify with that little boy. We have scars, too. No, not from an alligator, but the scars of a painful past. Some of those scars are unsightly and have caused us deep regret. But some wounds my friend are because God has refused to let go. In the midst of your struggle, He's been there holding on to you. . . .

The Scripture teaches that God loves you. You are a child of God. He wants to protect you and provide for you in every way. But sometimes we foolishly wade into dangerous situations, not knowing what lies ahead. The swimming hole of life is filled with peril[.] And we forget that the enemy is waiting to attack. That's when the tug-of-war begins—and if you have the scars of His love on your arms, be very, very grateful. He did not and will not ever let you go!

God has blessed you, so that you can be a blessing to others. You just never know where a person is in his/her life and what they are going through. Never judge another person's scars, because you don't know how they got them. . . .
Right now, someone needs to know that God loves them, and you love them, too—Enough to not let them go.

Always Tell Your Family And Friends How Much You Love Them!!!

From Tentmaker Ministries (http://www.tentmaker.org/)

Love

The command to love, as most consider it, "If you love me (God) you will keep my commandments," is not to do anything because it will prove one's love. It is rather a matter of the doing spontaneously springing from love. We give our lives for our children, partners, strangers, or neighbours because of its spontaneous rising from love not as a effort of proof. The spontaneous act proves our love. Love drives action. Action does not drive love.

What Is Jesus Doing?

It has become popular if not simple cant, to ask, “What would Jesus do?” There are necklaces, wristbands, car stickers, decals, shirts and hats, and all-manner of merchandise carrying this question. Or should we call it a slogan. A banal slogan, as it is usually applied so loosely without thought or even serious application.

From the first sightings of this marketing blitz, I was wary that although it may have begun as an altruistic attempt to move believers in the direction of a Christ-centered life, a life that might witness to a fallen world. Or was it, or had it become, one more ploy to sell “Christian” merchandise. Whatever your judgment on this little saying and its use, your heart will testify to your attitude regarding it as you try to deal with its challenge. “What would Jesus do,” may lead you into a best a guessing game based upon your understanding of Scripture and at worst a set of rules and an attempt to follow numerous commandments bordering on Leviticus. Remember, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit
gives life” (3 Cor. 3:6).

It immediately occurred to me, “Why would we ask, ‘What would Jesus do?’” In fact he is doing. The question we must ask is, “What is Jesus doing?” When Jesus walked the earth he gave us the model: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19). So then we must do what we see the Son doing, which is precisely what the Father is doing. The Godhead is one and not thinking, “What would my Father do?” The Son does what the Father is doing and the disciples of Jesus do what they see the Son is doing.

Jesus is living today. He is seated at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 2:33). He is interceding for us and apparently he even sometimes stands to receive his martyred children (Acts 7:55-56). In fact, by his Spirit, he is living within his redeemed (Romans 8:11; 2 Cor. 1:22; 3:17; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:13). And he will come again to receive his own unto himself and pour out judgment on a sinful world.

If any of his words recorded in the Scriptures are meaningful; if they are filled with the power they suggest, if his commands and promises are real, then he is living and “doing” now as you read these words.

He is living and the God of the living not the dead (Psalm 42:2; Matt. 16:16; 22:32). Our faith is vital, intimate, and relational with an imminent God. To ask, “What would Jesus do?” is to confess a great measure of separation between God and us. It is to confess our distance from his living heart and will. We always know what the object of our love is doing, if we are in the presence of that object. Young betrothed couples know the smell of each other, the rhythm of one another’s breath, and the moods of each. Is it any different with the couples of Jesus and his believers, if in fact we have tasted and seen that the Lord is good (Psalms 34:8)?

So then, let’s abide in Jesus and spontaneously do what he is doing. The world doesn’t need to see poor attempts at mimicking Jesus. “Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, ‘Sir, we wish to see Jesus’” (John 12: 20-21). The world needs to see Jesus (Luke 19:3; John 9:35-38). If you are a disciple of Christ, saved by his life, death, and resurrection, with his Spirit dwelling within you. He is active within you. Offer yourselves in sacrifice to him that he might be doing in and through you. This is our “reasonable service” or “spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). Can it be seen through you, through me, what Jesus is doing?

Christian Spirituality: Some beginning points of what Christian spirituality looks like

· Intimacy with God · Walking by the Spirit of God · A transformed mind · Not conformed to this world · Living with wild-abandon to God · Following the leader—Jesus · Not fulfilling the lust of the flesh · Dying to self · Seizing the divine moment · Loving God · Living God's adventure · Loving our neighbors · Hating sin · Hanging out with and loving sinners · Caring for the world and Earth · Meditating on God's word · Spending, even "wasting" time with God · Obeying God's word · Disciplined · Not domesticated · Wild as John the Baptist or Peter · As peaceful as Mary · Leaning on God's breast like John · Praying without ceasing · Not caring what people think of us, if it is to serve God's glory · Caring what people think of us, as it affects God's glory · Not Democratic · Not Republican · Perhaps a Demo-publican · A peacemaker · Not a warmonger · Standing against unrighteousness · Standing with the disenfranchised · Loving God with your whole being, all that you have, all you can be or will have ——— Darryl Wooldridge, August 2005

Tired, Poor, Refuse, And Homeless

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!—Emma Lazarus, @ the foot of the Statue of Liberty. 

How might we interpret these words in light of the challenges of immigration, gender difference, today's poor, refuse, and homeless? It seems to me that many are fond of hailing to this country's beginnings and yet forget what it claimed to represent despite its often failed example.

God's Time

I have been considering for a long time that time may not be sequential in God’s economy. Apparently I am not alone: “But the imposition of linear time on what is an eternal idea is what creates the contradiction. I don’t try to make a theologian out of Einstein, but he did show us that events that happen in sequence can also be events that happen simultaneously. If Einstein can imagine that in terms of physics, theologians can imagine it also in terms of the intrusion of eternity into linear time—that we are both immediately raised and raised together.” —Thomas G. Long (Candler School of Theology). It also indicates that it is never "too late" to pray.