In it, a couple of friends, John and Kelly, arrive at my house one evening and I’m not prepared for what they have come to talk about.

For the purpose of this story, John represents a few guys that my wife and I have kept in touch with over a long period as they’ve gone through marriage to lovely Christian women (who turn out to be unfaithful to them), fatherhood, divorce and return to bachelorhood.

In this scenario, John has moved to Australia and, on a brief visit home about two years ago, had introduced to us Kelly, from China, who is a few years younger than him. My experience of working with the Asian community and background in mentoring and relationship coaching are useful in helping John and Kelly over the internet to work though issues that come with developing a committed and caring relationship that is good for both of them.

As the scenario develops, they are back in New Zealand for another visit and arrive at my door and I welcome them in. We sit down with a wine and they surprise me by asking if I would use my powers as a registered Christian marriage celebrant to conduct their wedding in a few months. We talk through why they want to get married and I become sure that they have thought carefully through everything and are at least as committed as any couple I have ever taken through preparation for marriage.

I challenge them on cross-cultural issues and they show a remarkably good grasp of having worked through potential challenges that I have seen undo other cross-cultural relationships. We talk about a range of topics and they reveal in passing that they have not had sex and are saving themselves for marriage (which is not something I come across often these days – especially among Christian couples!). They also mention how they believe God has led them together and prepared them for each other through previous experiences. They speak about the future they see for themselves in mission for God and how they believe that their past experience in mission will be enhanced by both of them working together as a committed, married couple.

And so they talk excitedly about the wedding plans – what they want in their wedding service and who will be taking part – and we start to finalize the plans.

As I mulled over this scenario, the words from the bible came to me from the story of Peter and Cornelius – “Who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?” This proposed marriage seemed to give evidence of such a strong expression of the way of God. It seemed to fit all the criteria of Christian marriage – careful courtship, abstinence, a sense of a call of God, a commitment to mission, a demonstrable commitment to each other. Why would I not agree to be the celebrant for this wonderful couple?

At this point, my scenario went into freeze frame mode. Kelly is a male. So, how do I respond to the question, “Who am I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

—-
Mal Green is a member of Incedo, a mission order in New Zealand exploring what it means to follow Jesus with young people 24/7 outside of the structures of Christianity so that we can invite them to join us in our faith adventure. He has been hanging out with young people since 1969 while studying, lecturing, mentoring, pastoring.

The post Who am I to Think that I Could Stand in God’s Way? appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

I came home from work last Wednesday night, August 29th, flipped through the major network channels and was quickly disturbed by the bickering and bantering of the political campaigns, advertisements, and pundits. I felt an ache in my gut, a sadness in my heart for the way our country conducts itself through the election season, from both sides. I turned the TV off, trying to keep cynicism from creeping in.

So when I received a call the following day with an invitation to pray for our nation at the DNC, I almost laughed in disbelief. The person on the other end of the line was an acquaintance who used to work for the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives. He was looking for a Christian who has done “good and admirable work in the world” and was familiar with Blood:Water Mission because he had heard me speak a couple of times. It was a big call full of questions- how can I pray honestly before an arena of politics and power? How do I, a nonprofit leader, transcend partisanship? Of course, I felt honored and excited, but I mostly felt humbled, like in the heavy, sobering kind of way.

To take on the task, I retreated for several hours on Saturday September 1st to my secret garden of Radnor Lake near Nashville and walked along the soft soil of its trail, lost in thought and reflection, wondering what I could possibly pray to the God of the universe in front of people from various backgrounds, convictions and walks of life.

As I meandered through the woods, I had this unrelenting sense that I ought to simply pray for the things I care most about: Justice. Mercy. Humility. The prayer of St. Francis came to me, as well as the Scripture in Micah that says that seeking justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God are what the Lord requires of us.

I spent the rest of Saturday night in my not-so-secret garden of Starbucks where James met me, and gave me encouragement as I put the words to paper.

James and I spent a full weekend hosting his parents, driving to Louisville to celebrate an incredible young man whose life was taken by cancer and the 40th birthday of a dear friend of ours. In the midst of these deep moments with family and friends the prayer was brewing in me, percolating.

By Tuesday September 4th, I was in Charlotte with a prayer on my heart that was ready to be shared. Backstage that night, I sat with incredibly influential people – Rahm Emanuel, Kathleen Sebelius, Kal Penn, Craig Robinson, and Governor Deval Patrick. I watched these powerful people look as human as I was. I asked Governor Patrick if he ever gets nervous in situations like these. He smiled at me and replied, “Of course I do!” And then he kindly said, “You’ll do great.”

I sat on the side of the stage as the First Lady spoke with heart and elegance, and then when she finished, I walked up to the podium and felt the most amazing sense of peace and confidence in what I was supposed to pray. They were the honest words of a citizen, praying to God and hoping also to reach other citizens on their couches, who might be watching with the same sentiments I felt just five days earlier. I meant every word and have been encouraged by the thousands of you who prayed alongside of me. May justice and mercy trump partisanship in our lives these next 9 weeks.

—-
Jena Lee Nardella is the co-founder and Executive Director for Blood:Water Mission, a nonprofit focused on overcoming the HIV/AIDS and water crises in Africa.

The post How it All Happened: My Prayer at the DNC appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

The post Test Ad appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

I have often wondered about the history of interpreting the Third Commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain. When did it become about speaking impolitely rather than using God’s name for purposes that do not glorify Him like putting “God” into political platforms and saying “God bless America” at the end of speeches to score points with believers? I found an old blog post from the Credo House of Theology on this topic that has a good explanation of what the Third Commandment really means, so I thought I would share an excerpt:

The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority…

God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said. This makes sense. God has a reputation to protect.

This is exactly how God’s name gets used in our political discourse: to give false authority to the person using it. When politicians throw around God’s name for the sake of their own glory, it does tremendous damage to the ability of people who have bigger goals than winning elections to tell the lost and left-out that they have a God who loves them. So I’m grateful to whoever shouted and booed at the Democratic National Convention to try to prevent them from taking the Lord’s name in vain, whether they were doing so out of defense for the sanctity of the name or out of secularism. And I strongly urge all the other Christian bloggers out there who are pouncing at the opportunity to pronounce that the Democrats are officially the party of the godless to think about the disrespect for God’s name that you would be showing to make such a claim.

Furthermore, if I hadn’t grown up Christian and all that I had to go by in considering Christianity was its public witness over the past thirty years of culture war, then I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with God either. It is because I care about evangelism that I am upset about the unnecessary stumbling blocks that Christians are creating. If Christianity is reduced to a small remnant of American society in the next two generations, those of us who have damaged God’s name by using Him as a campaign button will be held accountable when we stand before Him. I wish that President Obama had had more spine to stand up for the Third Commandment.

—-
Morgan Guyton is the associate pastor of Burke United Methodist Church in Burke, Virginia, and a Christian who continues to seek God’s liberation from the prison of self-justification Jesus died to help him overcome. Morgan’s blog “Mercy Not Sacrifice” is located at http://morganguyton.wordpress.com. Follow Morgan on twitter at www.twitter.com/maguyton.

The post God Doesn’t Need our Political Endorsement appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

I’m not going to attempt to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” in the current crop of partisan wrangling. It should be no surprise that as a minister I’m more inclined to urge Christians to consider some of the things the scriptures have to say about the desirable characteristics and priorities to be sought in public leaders. While Presidents, Senators and members of Congress were missing from the scene in biblical times, some important lessons can be learned from what the scriptures say about kings.

By and large, kings did not get high marks by biblical writers. However, there are exceptions. Among the few kings regarded as good was Josiah. The prophet Jeremiah said of him, “He defended the cause of the poor and the needy and so all went well” (Jeremiah 22:16). Notice how the positive state of the nation is directly linked to the support this head of state gave the least advantaged. But what is said next in this verse is even more striking: “Is that not what it means to know the Lord?”

Defending the cause of the needy is virtually equated with having a genuine relationship with God. If a leader truly knows the Lord, that leader will act on behalf of the poor and by acting on behalf of the poor he or she will display the nature of his or her relationship with God. The use of God-words in speeches or the display of religious symbols in public buildings or the performance of religious rituals do not have priority over defending “the cause of the poor and needy.”

This commendation of King Josiah is in keeping with the leadership values affirmed elsewhere in scripture. Psalms 72 is a prayer that points to the qualities that make a leader praise-worthy. We should note both what is included and what is excluded in the text. The prayer asks God to lead the king in ways that will result in “prosperity for the people” (vs. 3) and abundance in food so the people may be satisfied (vs.16). Further, the prayer asks, “In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound” (vs.7).

The national leader is to “judge your people with righteousness.” But observe that a particular class of people is given special attention: “and your poor with justice” (vs. 2). These words are directly linked to the prayer for prosperity. In this same vein, the prayer continues, “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor” (vs. 4). There is no suggestion that the righteous leader should give similar attention to the interests of the strong or wealthy, thought the leader must be fair to all. Apparently the emphasis on being especially attentive to the needs of the poor is because leaders have a tendency to cater to the rich. This is certainly what we find in many contemporary American political leaders. There is no shortage of leaders and want-to-be leaders who are intent on defending the cause of the rich without regard to how the consequences crush the poor

The fact is that as political candidates seek public office sometimes they mask their real commitments. They may claim to care for the less advantaged while supporting policies that would leave the weak and poor even more vulnerable. It counts for nothing good if a politician says, “The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves” and then advances measures that will do the opposite. We need to beware of leaders and aspiring leaders who pursue courses of action that will most immediately benefit the wealthy, while insisting that others will have to “sacrifice” in the short run, trusting that “somewhere over the rainbow/ skies are blue/ and the dream that you dare to dream/ really does come true.”

The Psalmist can’t seem to emphasize enough the importance of the leader’s attention to those who are less advantaged: “For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight” (vs.12-14). The commendable King/leader enforces the laws that protect the poor and weak from the rich and strong, granting the poor, not just voluntary charity, but their rights. There is no way to govern “righteously” that neglects this focus.

Unfortunately, many who insist that more “godly leaders” are needed don’t have in mind leaders with the qualities extolled in scripture. Where do we find leaders who will govern with an emphasis on caring for the least advantaged, as scripture commends? Do we have any in either major party? They seem to be rare. Poverty has not been a serious topic during this campaign. Christians need to look carefully and prayerfully to find leaders whose influence will be “good news to the poor” (Isaiah 61:1).

—-
Craig M. Watts is the minister of Royal Palm Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Coral Springs, Florida and Co-Moderator of Disciples Peace Fellowship. He authored the book Disciple of Peace: Alexander Campbell on Pacifism, Violence and the State (Doulos Christou Press: Indianapolis, 2005) and his essays have appeared in many journals such as Cross Currents, Encounter, the Otherside, DisciplesWorld and more. Craig blogs on the Disciples Peace Fellowship’s, “Shalom Vision.”

The post Commendable in an Age of Short Cuts: Kings, Presidents and Prophets appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

America’s me-centric worldview is growing exponentially thanks to a blend of post-9/11 anxiety, economic uncertainty, the doldrums of post-modernity, and unbridled capitalism. As this continues, the mainstream mindset is starting to resemble those green alien squeeze toys in ‘Toy Story,’ caught staring upwards with a punch-drunk gaze, waiting for the arcade machine’s claw to pluck us out of the group, so that we might leave behind the mundane others as we’re whisked off to our own personal paradise. Our politics and religion become customized vehicles for legitimizing a preoccupation of the self, all at a great cost to ourselves and the community around us.

We experienced a national tragedy on July 20th when a gunman stormed a midnight screening in Aurora, Colorado, taking the lives of 12 people and injuring 58 others. This was the highest number of casualties in an American mass shooting ever, but you wouldn’t know that if you followed much of the chatter on social media. I made the mistake of browsing Facebook shortly after the event, which was filled with people trying to score cheap political points about gun rights, all while human beings had just died, were dying, and were severely injured. I get that horror like the Colorado theater incident gets people talking, and that emotions produce different reactions in different people, but it’s beginning to feel like we’ve reached a place where every event is just fodder for an individualist agenda, and compassion a distant second place to being (or feeling) correct.

This is an acidic worldview in which all tragedy, all misfortune, all poverty must be explainable as the result of personal or political failure somewhere along the way. Such an assumption is fueled by America’s favorite tag team idols: self reliance and personal responsibility. As an assumption it is both inaccurate and judgmental on a grand scale.

You’ve heard the account of the rich man leaving Jesus with a heavy heart after Christ told him to sell all of his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor? This answer, given by Christ, surprised the disciples. I love that even those who literally walked with Jesus didn’t find him to be predictable, which is a great reminder for followers of Christ today, that we might not limit our view of God to what is palatable. When the disciples asked Jesus who had any chance of entering God’s kingdom, Christ said “no chance at all if you think you can pull it off by yourself. Every chance in the world if you let God do it.” -Matt. 10:27, The Message translation

Is wealth inherently bad? Of course not. Is a solid work ethic something to be frowned upon? No, but it’s also not automatically holy. Wealth and a work ethic can be blessings as well as traps.

What’s the point here, and why did Jesus order the rich man to release his fortune? I would argue that one of the reasons is not the wealth itself but what wealth or a related preoccupation can do to our spirit, mind, and heart, perhaps what had become of that rich man as a result of his fortune. There is a point at which self reliance becomes a crutch; a destination where we feel good about ourselves only when we’re gaining or have much in storage; a plateau where we spend our days working to defend or maintain what has become “rightfully ours;” a mindset from which we are made to look down on those who aren’t progressing as we define it.

This is one of the most efficient ways for a population to let go of compassion.

“Compassion is the sometimes fatal capacity for feeling what it’s like to live inside somebody else’s skin. It is the knowledge that there can never really be any peace and joy for me until there is peace and joy finally for you too.” -Frederick Buechner

Compassion is not just for the benefit of the hurting, it also creates in us a humbler approach in which we lend a hand or a prayer before we lend an opinion, where we continually remember that we don’t know everything, and let that adjustment cause us to to be caring instead of always and first fighting to be correct. Compassion is nourishment for an entire community, and I would argue a nourished community is more in line with God’s kingdom than a bunch of individuals struggling to capture the prize and growing in resentment towards the people they determine are always getting in the way.

Is sharing the kingdom of God on earth not your priority or desire? Okay. For the others who feel prompted to follow God and who pray to be glimpses of God’s goodness despite our own weakness, we must always remember that being filled requires that we also be emptied. If we insist on holding on to 1,000 things and 1,000 opinions, 1,000 goals and 1,000 convictions, and none of it is allowed to budge, then we have left very little room for God.

—
Ian Ebright is a former film critic who now writes about faith, life, culture and human rights. You can read more by visiting his site The Broken Telegraph, or follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

The post The Danger of Mixing Wealth With America’s “Me” Mentality appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

Short answer: there is none.

I recently stumbled upon a Les Miserables inspired video parody  in support of a Barack Obama’s second term. I have obvously shared my support of President Obama in the past, but a lesser-known thing about me is that I loves me some Broadway Musicals: In the Heights, Rent, The Book of Morman and Les Miserables being some of my favorites. President Obama AND Jean Valjean together, yes sir, may I have some more. So not only did I click on over and watch it, but soon found out that I am one-degree of separation from one of the performers.

Anyhoo, here is a sample from One Term More, a video parody of One Day More from Les Miserables

One Term More!

With laws that let ‘em stand their ground,
Republicans are locked & loaded.

Contraception’s now a sin,
Screwing G.M. in the clutch.
Incivility’s a virtue,
Homophobic. Out of touch.
Filibusters. Budget scrums.
Ultrasounds & speculums.
To the Dark Side they’ve succumbed.

After I watched One Term More, even though I thought the lyrics were witty, the satire right on and I generally supported the politics behind the creation of it, I was left with more than a little discomfort. It was the same kind of discomfort that I get when friends of mine in the religious community post pictures, quotes and updates that - to those with whom we find agreement – may be powerful, prophetic and or giggle-inducing, do little to build up community across the chasms of theology, ideology or politics.

Yeah, I know the smart-ass photo captions are funny and I’m a Debbie Downer.

Now before anyone accuses me of dismissing the power of satire on culture, I do not disagree. Thoughtful satire, witty snark and timely sarcasm can be powerful forces, but it seems that in today’s uber-connected and politically charged climate these tactics serve mostly to galvanizing communities already in agreement in order to be a force against the enemy and they do very little to help build bridges of reconciliation, relationships and commonality. I am willing to be pushed on this, but I simply do not believe bridges are built with snark, satire and sarcasm and I would bet that most satirist are not really interested in reconciliation with those whom they are satirizing.

But it feels so good and makes me happy . . . cue Sheryl Crow.

In no way am I above this, as I too have leaned on what I think is funny in order to take a swipe at someone with whom I disagree. It can be cathartic and, truthfully, when you hit a snark-homer, it feels awesome . . . and when friends retweet, share, comment, etc affirming said awesomeness, all the better. But here is where I experience the tension: as a person of faith, a pastor, one who is committed to the building up of community, I am held to a different standard than the rest of the world. I can be all up in the political battles, but I can choose to engage with a different posture and see the landscape through a different lens. Sure, I want to “win the day” but more importantly, I want human relationships, all human relationships, not just my ideological kindred, to be built up and not further torn apart.

I am not calling on a widespread boycott of all the ironic images with witty political quips ripping the politics of the other party, but I would say that if you choose to post them while also calling for people to reach over and beyond aisles of disagreement, that second part will be harder to believe. Some of you out there have no interest in building bridges and will have a legitimate case for calling me out on the privilege that I have to urge bridge-building, but I stand firm in by belief that those of us in the church can and must model a different way of  living in conflict and disagreement with one another.

This is not a call to weakness, but to graciousness. We can speak truth to power without tearing one another down, we can challenge the beliefs of another without resorting to violent rhetoric and we can stand for human dignity without stripping human dignity from those who may not stand along side of us. Jesus did it all the time, others have done it since then and I refuse to believe that we cannot do it still.

So . . . while I do get a chuckle out of some of what you all post and the serious creativity that politics can inspire, when it comes to choosing how to engage during this political season, I’m going to try my darnedest to muzzle my smart-ass awesomeness in exchange for words of hope-filled idealism.

If you’re up for it, you’re welcome to join me.

And for your viewing and listening pleasure, here is the real One Day More, the 10th Anniversary performance.

—-
Bruce is a native Northern Californian and third generation Chinese/Filipino who has been living in San Francisco since 1998.  Until May, 2011 he was the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church, a church of 20/30-somethings in San Francisco, CA and from 2008-2010 was Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He is currently one of those “consultant” types who makes his way, writing, speaking, teaching and drinking coffee. His social networks of choice are  Twitter, Facebook and his Blog

This article originally appeared on Bruce’s blog at Patheos.com

The post The Role of Satire, Snark and Sarcasm in Building Community appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

In college, a new sort of emphasis emerged in my Christian journey. Instead of seeing discipleship as a system of sin management, I discovered the red letters of Scripture. These words of Jesus (along with the actions of Christ that aren’t in red) propelled me in a new direction: justice.

Compulsively, I would give a few bucks to homeless people as they asked. In my youth curriculum (while I served as a youth pastor), more of the emphasis moved toward Christian activism. That is not to say that I didn’t care about relational aspects of knowing God, but that justice (at times superficial forms there of) became a primary emphasis. As a result many areas became important in my personal life: signing every progressive petition that would lead to influencing the system for the poor, avoiding stores that are known for their social Darwinism, and purchasing anything I could find that is organic.

It would be safe to say that I went from conservative evangelical focuses to a progressive faith emphasis. Still holding to the essentials of the Christian theology, but believing that true discipleship meant doing certain things. It’s interesting to me looking back: at one end of the pendulum of my faith journey I tried to avoid things, and at the other end of the swing I tried to do things. Both attempts at living the Christian life miss the point of discipleship – completely!

Which begs the question: What’s the point?

I’m becoming convinced that both polarities of holiness miss the point. We aren’t supposed to live as though God is a cop, ready to bust us each time we sin. Neither does God call us to work ourselves so hard that we become void of spiritual vitality. In this sense, the Christian life isn’t worth living.

I’ve quoted Dallas Willard elsewhere but this is worth noting a second time:

“Jesus never expected us simply to turn the other cheek, go the second mile, bless those who persecute us, give unto them that ask, and so forth.  These responses, generally and rightly understood to be characteristic of Chrsitlikeness, were put forth by him as illustrative of what might be expected of a new kind of person – one who intelligently and steadfastly seeks, above all else, to live within the rule of God and be possessed by the kind of righteousness that God himself has, as Matthew 6:33 portrays.  Instead, Jesus did invite people to follow him into that sort of life from which behavior such as loving one’s enemies will seem like the only sensible and happy thing to do.  For a person living that life, the hard thing to do would be to hate the enemy, to turn the supplicant away, or to curse the curser…  True Christlikeness, true companionship with Christ, comes at the point where it is hard not to respond as he would.”(Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives,7-8.)

This “responding like Jesus would” impulse comes to us in many places – like the Sermon on the Mount – but also in 1 Peter 2:

²¹ You were called to this kind of endurance, because Christ suffered on your behalf. He left you an example so that you might follow in his footsteps. ²² He committed no sin, nor did he ever speak in ways meant to deceive. ²³ When he was insulted, he did not reply with insults. When he suffered, he did not threaten revenge. Instead, he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.

Did you notice the reason that Jesus was able to endure such horrendous violence? Jesus “entrusted himself” to his heavenly Father. Prior to enduring the sufferings of the cross, with beads mixed of sweat and blood dripping down his brow, he humbly accepted the will of God the Father. In that painful, yet intimate moment, Jesus’ relationship to God took the ultimate leap forward, a deep knowing that led to a profound trust.

Jesus had chosen to know the Father’s will so much that it determined the natural impulses of his actions toward his enemies. Peter invites us to model our lives in the same way. How do we live as people of peace? The answer begins with “entrusting” ourselves to God, allowing the life of God to transform our character. When this happens, enduring unjust treatment via nonviolence will become part of our second nature.

The same is true of every other justice issue. God empowers us to become the sort of people whose impulses are bent toward love, and this happens when we create space in our lives to know God intimately. Justice and spirituality go together!

And, what of my former moral management approach to faith? Well, the sort of morality that God desires is a morality formed by the Spirit of Christ. Anything that looks like self-help strategies to administer a sin prevention plan misses the point of holiness all together. Christ wants to make our impulses bent toward holiness, including social justice, not dependent on our own legalistic strategies.

Certainly, we ought to also practice doing justice and living morally, even when we feel spiritually deflated. Those moments also work toward intimacy with God. In fact, in serving is how many people come to know Jesus the most. The risk is that we allow all of our doing to replace moments with God in our own Garden of Gethsemane, when some of the most profound “entrusting” and character formation by the Spirit takes place. No wonder Jesus often got alone for prayer before major Kingdom moments.

The Christian life isn’t worth living as I used to understand it. Instead, what if we all chose to allow the life of God to live in and among us? With such a reframe, holiness coupled with justice might just become more like second nature.

—-
Kurt Willems (M.Div., Fresno Pacific) is an Anabaptist writer preparing for a church planting project with the Brethren in Christ. He writes at: the Pangea Blog and is also on Twitterand Facebook

The post Why the “Christian life” isn’t worth living appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

The four stalls were filled, and two women were waiting.  “Amber” I said, before quickly realizing that spotting a walker under a stall was not a complicated task.  I walked over to the stall.  “Amber,” I said through the door, “your grandpa sent me to check on you.  Do you need some help?”  She replied in one word, but I didn’t understand.  “Do you need some help?”  A second reply.  I still didn’t catch it.

“Are you in line,” asked a woman waiting for a stall.  “Go ahead,” I said as I waited outside Amber’s stall not yet knowing what to do.  Slowly the stall door unlatched, and a little girl who looked to be 8 years old (I later learned she was closer to 14) smiled gratefully and welcomed me in to help her.  Standing with her walker, her pants around her ankles, her trusting eyes melted me.  I helped her get dressed and held the door for her to go back to her grandfather.

When I returned to my seat she and her grandfather were sitting almost in front of me.  I don’t know if they were there before.  I had not noticed them.  As I stepped near her she lit up and spoke a paragraph to me, again in words I didn’t understand, but her eyes spoke very clearly, perhaps the most sincere thank you I’ve ever heard.  I touched her shoulder to return the affection.

Throughout the volleyball game, occasionally Amber would turn around to check on me, with that same beautiful little smile, and sometimes with words of which I only understood the spirit.  A friendship was being extended to me.

A friendship that probably will never develop beyond those shared smiles.  It’s not likely Amber and I will ever see each other again, and I never understood a word she spoke to me.  Yet, something in her spirit touched mine.  Not that I need her or that she needs me, but that somehow in a realm deeper than our senses can explain, our souls touched for a moment and made each other a little better than before.

Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.  Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:1-2)

—-
Kathy Vestal is a college educator in Salisbury, NC. She has a Master’s of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Master’s of Education from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. An avid writer, gifted teacher, and occasional public speaker/preacher, her passions include civil rights, social justice, church reform, and education. She has traveled to Mexico, Honduras, Argentina, Ecuador, and The Gambia, Africa, and enjoys reading, nature, and history.

The post From the Heart…Angel Unaware appeared first on Red Letter Christians.

Attempts by these students and teachers of the law to expose his heretical teachings most often failed miserably. Nearly every time, he would turn their own interpretation of the Law against them, and public support of this revolutionary Rabbi and his gospel of grace continued to grow.

This time would be different. He would have to draw a line in the sand.

They caught her in the act of adultery.  She was a home wrecker, the seductress of a married man – a man whom the teachers of the Law knew well.  He regularly brought his tithes and offerings to the temple, and was a gentleman in good standing in the Jewish community.

No one could believe that he had taken advantage of the young girl – even though that’s what She kept saying.  She was scared.

Regardless, the Law permitted a stoning.  It even demanded it.

And just as their married friend had used her body for his pleasure, they would use her very life to trap this liberal Galilean and turn the crowd against his teachings of grace.

They threw her down into the dirt directly in front of Jesus, interrupting his sermon.

All eyes were on the Great Teacher.

She was crying and whimpering, each breath shorter than the last.  The men were smirking.

This time they’d trapped Jesus within the boundaries of the law.  The lines of this box were clear. The woman didn’t matter.  She was a whore.  She deserved death.

“The scripture clearly states that she should die, Jesus. What do you say?”

The God-man had already gotten on the ground next to the woman, posturing himself in alignment with this sinner. They kept pestering.

‘Well, what do you say?  Can we stone her or not!?!?’

Their question was not one of permission, but of partition.

They knew according to the law of Moses, they could stone her with a clear conscience.  That wasn’t the question.  The question was, would Jesus approve of her stoning? Or would he again overturn the Law in favor of grace?

They wanted Jesus to draw a clear line – a boundary – between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Between the sacred and the common.  The good and the bad.  Those that deserved death and those that did the killing in the name of God.

They wanted Jesus to draw a line in the sand.

They had hoped his public allegiance to the law would stop the crowds from following him. ‘In’ versus ‘Out’ was the very same gospel they themselves were preaching in the synagogues.

Instead, Jesus flipped the Law on its head.  They should have seen it coming.

He drew in the dirt with his finger –  a line.  Jesus stood.

‘Whichever one of you has no sin, throw the first stone.  Let her have it.’

Jesus then stooped on the ground next to her, directly in the line of fire.  He reinforced his line in the sand.  If any would be so bold as to throw their stones of condemnation, they would have hit the Master Teacher, too.

The oldest realized it first.  Jesus wasn’t going to leave her side, even if it cost him his life.  He chose the side of the sinner.  The elder dismissively dropped his rock and turned around to walk away.  The others, one by one, followed.

The woman’s breathing had slowed down, her tears now falling from guilt and shame rather than fear.

She looked at Jesus, who was helping her stand on her feet.

‘Woman, where did they all go? Didn’t anyone condemn you?’

‘No one did, Lord.’

‘Me neither.’

–
But what about the ‘go and sin no more?’

Often we quote Jesus’ last words to the woman, ‘Go and sin no more.‘ We use this phrase as an opportunity to pounce upon the person with whom we disagree.

Here’s the kicker, though – Jesus said this after two very significant things took place. First, he risked both his reputation and his life. A a Rabbi, Jesus stopping the stoning of this woman caught in the act of adultery was him essentially and literally allowing compassion, mercy and love to have the authoritative word – even over the authority of scripture. He was indeed teaching a New Way – and it could have (and ultimately did) cost him his life. He stood alongside her, risking his reputation by being seen as WITH her…

In this way he ‘earned the right’ to speak to the woman. She would listen to the guy who just saved her life by risking his own, regardless of what he believed.

Second, and equally important, before ‘sharing the truth in love,’ Jesus made certain the woman knew that he did not condemn her. ‘Where are they? Didn’t anybody stay to condemn you?!?’ And here’s the punchline :: ‘Neither do I. From now on sin no more.’

Also interesting to note :: Could the woman have stopped sinning? Was this request from the Master Teacher even possible? Absolutely not. He didn’t call out her specific sin, and it’s likely that she messed up and missed the mark, even after this encounter with Jesus. And because of that…his words of ‘go and sin no more’ seem to not be the point of the passage; rather, the point is Jesus was willing to stand against the oppressors alongside the oppressed, even when she’d been caught red-handed ‘in the act’ of sin.

What about you?  Where do you draw your ‘line in the sand’?

—-
Michael Kimpan is the author of the WayWard follower blog, a site designed to inspire thoughtful conversation and movement among followers of Jesus Christ.  Michael worships and serves on staff as the Communications Director at Richwoods Christian Church in Peoria, IL.

The post Me Neither: Jesus Draws His Line in the Sand appeared first on Red Letter Christians.