I Am Not A Gentleman pt. 2

I would like to expound on my last post in this one…and I’m going to do that using none other than the expert on love herself – Taylor Swift.

A buddy of mine and I were listening to Blank Space on the radio (because it was on, ok, we didn’t geek out or anything…or did we?) and we came across that infamous line – “Boys only want love if it’s torture.” Now, I don’t know what ole T-Swift meant by that from her own perspective, but my friend and I discussed what it might possibly mean and I offered this thought.

It is the age old story of rescuing the damsel in distress. If there is a dragon to slay, a tower to scale, or a molten lava moat to cross, that somehow makes it more fun for the prince and more meaningful for the princess. 

Imagine though, the princess fighting her way out of the castle while the prince was on route and doing half the work, teaming up with the prince’s efforts. Does that sound like any story ever? Nope. Why? Because it’s not as “romantic” or fun for the prince and it’s definitely a lot harder for the princess.

Now think about our own society. We have bought into this idea quite a bit. The man pursues the woman relentlessly and surely is the first person to initiate anything (lest the woman be too “forward”). The girl plays hard to get but the man doesn’t give up, he offers gesture after gesture to prove his affection. Eventually the man proves himself, the girl falls in love, and then she subjugates herself for the next 70 years and makes sandwiches on the daily.

There is a power switch that seems to go on. For some time, it seems as though the woman holds the power in “courting” as she creates the boundaries, doesn’t make it too easy, and so on and so forth. Then, whenever the final task of a ring and a question is completed, the chase is over and the man has his “prize.” He then assumes power in the relationship completely. Now, this initial power being in the woman’s hands is rather artificial and really just shows other facets of male power, but it nevertheless at least appears to exist as the man courts her.

What do I mean by artificial power? Think of it this way. In our society, the guy is expected to ask the girl out for the most part (at least the “official” date, she may suggest coffee or the like, but the man usually initiates a “date”). Now, if a girl likes a guy but the guy does not have such feelings, really, all he has to do is…nothing. So, there is apparent power in being pursued by a man, but that power still ends up in the man’s hands if you think about it.

A relationship where both parties went into the process equally would not be nearly as riveting of a read, and it also would not necessarily lead to the inevitable power shift to sandwich making. “Boys only want love if it’s torture” because it means they get to be in control of the relationship later on down the road.  

Although it may not be very Disney, I think an equal relationship from the get-go creates far healthier scenarios for both parties throughout the course of that relationship.

Now remember, from my last post, this does not mean we go around acting like jerks. It instead frees us up to be mutual servants to each other, continually seeking to put the other’s needs above our own. When both partners do this, it embodies the agape style of love that Christ showed to us. We talk about being servants to spouses all the time, but do we really have the fairy tale scenario in mind when we think of such?

Fairy tales are fairy tales for a reason, they aren’t real life and we don’t get to see years down the road. Cinderella marries the prince after one night of dancing and some diligent seeking on the prince’s part? What if the prince has some pretty janky expectations of her? What if they aren’t very compatible in their personalities? What if he likes Nickelback? These are all distinct possibilities that the fairy tale doesn’t get into. Do they truly live happily ever after? I would suggest that it is unlikely.

There may not be a happily ever after, but there is certainly joy in mutually submitting to another person in humble servanthood and seeing an equal in your partner. That is Eden. That is how Jesus saw other people. He came not to be served, but to serve.

We take the few verses containing household codes in the Bible that mention wives submitting to husbands and we skew this to refer to power. Those verses are not about power; they are about mutual service and respect. Jesus was not a power guy; He was a servant. 

Some of the most joyful marriages are ones where there is such deep respect and love for the other person that neither sees the other as lesser. Unload the dishwasher together. Cook dinner together. Decide to have mutually fulfilling sex together. Basically, share as much responsibility, pain, and joy as equally as you can.

But, for this to be the case, I think we have to start this togetherness from the start. What starts in equality can stay in equality. Fellas, don’t offer countless gestures of chivalry and affection simply so that you can claim your prize and “call her yours,” serve her and see her as your equal. Ladies, when you are being swooned by gestures of affection and chocolate, ask what is expected in return and if you are truly viewed as an equal. Don’t let love be torture, make it mutual service and respect.

Donnn’t say I didn’t, say I didn’t, warn yaaaaa!

Jesus' Call To Self-Defense? A Look At Luke 22:35-38

It has happened a few times as I’ve written various things about violence – someone convinced of their right to bear arms, arm bears, and defend themselves from a Biblical perspective will bring up Luke 22:35-38. In fact, this seems to happen quite a bit, so let's look at the passage and talk about it. 

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors. ’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough”

Usually I deal with a topic, this time I’m going to deal with a specific text. I do this because recently I have seen this text misused heavily, mainly in support of gun ownership and the right to defend one’s self using such means. I have even seen some people saying “this is Jesus’ call for self-defense” and that simply is not true on any level.

Firstly, such an interpretation would be pretty contrary to Christ’s command of enemy love in Matthew 5. If something is that different, it behooves one to look deeper into things and see what is really going on. Furthermore, what this shows is that when it comes to Jesus’s commands, we like to pick and choose which one’s we follow based on our own desires.

Now, like I said, you don’t have to pick and choose, Jesus is not inconsistent here with what He has said previously.

Look at verse 37 – “I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ This comes from Isaiah. So, this command to His disciples is so that He will fulfill prophecy and be considered an outlaw by Roman government (Sprinkle, 2013). Also, some even think that the two swords allude to Deuteronomic law which said that it takes two witnesses to testify against someone, and in this case, the two swords are those witnesses (Willimon, 2008). It is not for defense. How do we know this? Two things: Firstly, two of the disciples (likely Peter and Simon the Zealot) already have swords and so they say “Look, Lord, here are two swords” and Jesus replies to this with the phrase “it is enough.” Enough for what? This verse cannot be about self-defense, because two swords cannot defend 11 disciples, especially if they go out two by two as they did just before this passage.

In fact, there are opinions out there on what "it is enough" would have actually meant when Jesus said it. For Luke Timothy Johnson (1991), "it is enough" essentially carries the same meaning as "enough of this nonsense" and he comes to that conclusion by matching it grammatically and in its original language to something Jesus says later surrounding this same issue, which we'll now get into.

Scroll down a few verses to 49-51.

And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. 

Jesus rebukes Peter for using the sword, because that was not the purpose of the sword. He in fact uses the phrase "no more of this!" (or as Luke Timothy Johnson writes - "enough of this" and thus reading the first time Jesus uses the phrase as matching the second time). While we are busy making our enemies bleed, Jesus is healing them and making them whole. Nothing in the teachings of Jesus allows for violence, but the disciples still can’t get their minds around it.

The disciples almost constantly misunderstood what Jesus being the Messiah truly meant for the Kingdom of God. They expected an earthly kingdom to come about, like the glory days of the Maccabees. There were many “messiahs” in that time who tried to set up the Kingdom of God, but did so through violence and always failed. That is why Jesus actually orders them in Mark 8:27-38 to tell no one that He was the Messiah when Peter identifies Him as such. Jesus wanted to differentiate Himself from the other “messiahs” out there (Sprinkle, 2013). RIGHT after that section when Jesus instructs them to not tell others that He is the Messiah, He begins to talk about how He is going to have to suffer and die. Peter actually rebukes Jesus for this (8:32) because that would totally jack up the violent political uprising that would help install the Kingdom of God. Jesus then tells Peter that he does not have his mind on the things of God but the things of men.

With their minds still on “the things of men” and not “the things of God,” the two disciples with swords get excited when Jesus commands them to go and buy them. They, like many who misinterpret this verse to talk about self-defense, had earthly kingdom thinking and not heavenly kingdom thinking.

At the end of the day, I understand that we may possess a different view on self-defense. However, I think we can agree that scripture has been used for terrible reasons before and a little look at the context of a verse can truly help us steer clear of poor interpretations. So, I hope that you have gotten something out of this discussion. Grace and peace to you all!

Works Cited:

Johnson, Luke T., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1991. Print

Sprinkle, Preston. Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013. Print.

Willimon, Will. Duke Chapel Service, February 21, 2008, #160. Link – https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bishop-william-h.-willimons/id261879191

I Am Not A Gentleman pt. 1

This is going to be a bit of a trip, so strap in. Are you satisfied with how the world views men, women, and relationships? I personally am not, and I want to share some thoughts on the issue with you. 

We live in a world where men are highly privileged over women. Some may not see it, others may think that is fine and dandy, but it is nevertheless the case. If you are male, I challenge you to ask several women that you know if they have ever experienced some sort of oppression or prejudice because they are women. Some have been passed up for jobs, others have been viewed as lesser, and still some have experienced absolutely terrible and shocking things, simply because they are women. 

Now, I know what most reading this will be thinking - "I don't treat women that way, I am a gentleman" - but that doesn't mean that there is not a problem or that you don't contribute in some way. So, the first thing that must be done is to realize this and like I said, one of the best ways that I can think of to open your mind to this might just be to interview different people and get their stories. 

Now, for those of you who are genuinely good guys, I still have some thoughts to share. Girls, don't feel like you're excluded from reading the rest of this and getting something from it because honestly, when society tells you something long enough, you may start to believe it, and I don't want you to. 

Now, for my gentleman and ladies out there, I would like you to observe and ponder the following image:

Now, this may offend some for good reason, but I'd like to talk about it in a way that perhaps one might not get at first glance. I personally believe that there is a certain level of expectation in our culture for gentlemanly behavior. I believe there is a subtle, if not sometimes overt, message that in exchange for being a gentleman, I expect to be served. Perhaps the message at other times is "I treat you well, you put out for me" (If you'll allow me to be so crass). 

I know that for most good dudes out there, this is not what is going through your mind consciously, but I still think that the overall message from society is that if a man is a gentleman, the woman will subjugate herself to the man. 

So, what's the cure for this and how do we as people balance this idea while not just becoming jerks with no manners? Let's start at the beginning. I start here because I think we must change the way our minds think about gender in a holistic way. 

In the beginning, there was a garden. Did you know that the Hebrew used in Genesis 1-2 describing man and woman is language of equality? It truly is in stark opposition to the culture that seems to come later. Eve may be called a "helper", but that term has an extremely elevated meaning compared to how our culture often thinks of the word. After the fall of humankind (brought about by Adam and Eve), the world becomes patriarchal. 

This is where I may differentiate myself from some Christian feminist thinkers. And please note, I have not studied this in vivid detail so if you can and would like to contribute to my understanding and knowledge, please do so. I think that how women are viewed in this world is related almost completely to the fall of humankind. With that being said, I think that this will always be the case on some level. So, while some feminist movements seek to bring societal change to how women are viewed, I don't think this will ever be fully realized. 

But, there were beginnings to this. When you look at the Old Testament Law, it is clearly patriarchal and even seems to be a bit on the misogynist side, if not very much on the misogynist side. However, in a way, it is still a small piece in making things better. Understanding this topic means understanding how the Law functioned. It was a mediator. The Law was not God's ideal, but it did move us closer to that ideal. When you look at the Law compared to other ancient law codes and cultures of that time, Israel was pretty grand. It made sincere improvement on things while still allowing for some cultural expectations. This can be seen in how women, slaves, and foreigners were treated, how violence was viewed and used, and a slew of other things. As odd as it may sound, when compared with the surrounding culture, it is almost a piece of feministic literature. It was making improvements while building up to something else, and that something was Jesus. 

One of the interesting things about Jesus is that His primary goal (other than saving humanity) was restoring the Edenic Ideal to the world, namely in the church. This ideal involves shalom, love, relationship that was lost, and if we truly examine the text, I believe it should include the treatment of women. So, while the world will likely always treat women as lesser to some degree or another, the church should be the one place where this is not the case. 

Now, unfortunately, the church has sometimes treated women worse than certain areas of the world, and so for that, I am truly sorry on behalf of the imperfect church that I am a part of. But, I want to change that. I hope that I can be a part of making the church a place where you feel so incredibly valued and loved, and that you are seen equally. 

I'm not going to go into women's roles in church or anything like that. If you'd like my opinion or resources, I'd be happy to give either, but such is not the purpose of this post. The Bible does have some unique things to say about relationships, men, and women. But, unpacking every nuance or why I choose to interpret in the way I do would take a long time. 

One thing I would like to say outright though is that I do not see many inherent differences between men and women. Obviously there are some physical differences (talk to your moms and dads if you don't know what I'm talking about), but some of the other stuff is made up by us. Our culture usually informs how we think about gender and the roles of such. Now, what's interesting is that these differences that are created by culture are in fact biological on some level. Culture and especially family can create and shape the way our brains function and our neurons fire, and so for some of the common "differences" between men and women, there is a level of biology to it. However, this is not inherent and can indeed be changed with an intentional change of the mind and how we view things. (I could go on for DAYZ on this subject, feel free to ask me about any of this since I have to leave it so short for now). 

What I wish to do now is incredibly cheesy, but it will help illustrate all of this content rather well hopefully - I want to write an open letter to whomever my wife may be, if indeed she exists and such is permitted to me. 

Hello there! Whoever you are, there are a few things you should probably know and expect if you choose to engage in a covenantal relationship with me (your choice, not my coercion). Firstly, I will not treat you like a princess (honestly, how entitled is that?), I will treat you like a child of God. I am not prince charming, in fact, I often feel more like Shrek and connect with him deeply. When you get to know me, you will get to know an incredibly flawed person. For pity's sake, at one point I purposefully decided to look like this: 

But despite my flaws, I am redeemed and have been forever defined by such. I don't know what our life together will look like. I hope we can share as much responsibility as possible, but who knows? Honestly, it's going to be a trip that we're going to have to figure out together. I don't have any preconceived expectations of who will do what, I only ask that you bear with me patiently as we learn the other's strengths and figure out how to not burn down the house. It will be a grand adventure to say the least. 

I'm not the average dude, and for some that is honestly a deterrent (but one that I'm proud of). I don't have a shotgun waiting for intruders and thieves. I fully plan on living in a really cheap yet functional house/apt/some sort of structure so that our money can be diverted to helping those less fortunate and furthering the kingdom of God. In general, I'm an odd duck and I'm proud of it. 

I want to empower you as a person and never treat you as though you are my lesser or in need of me because I am a man (we all need people, that's part of life). I don't really plan on fulfilling one of those odd Christian expectations of the man "pursuing the woman relentlessly" until I eventually wear you down and you concede or realize I'm cool. I fully desire for this empowerment thing to mean that you want a relationship just as bad as I do and are willing to go into it equally with me. Do I know exactly what all this will look like? Nope. But it will be fun living life together and figuring it out. 

Lastly, I am not a gentleman as defined by western society or southern manners, but I have dedicated my life to being a servant and I plan on loving you and everyone else in our lives as Christ loved the church. I will serve you, not because you're a woman, but because you're a child of God and because I love you. I will hold doors open for you, for children, for other men, and I may be stuck at doors for a decent while at times, all because this is how I want to treat other people, not because I think lesser of anyone. 

In all things, I want to treat you very well, but because I am a Christ imitating servant, not because I am a gentleman who expects something in return.  

To Hell In A Handbasket: How To Live In A Post-Christian Society

"The world is going to Hell in a handbasket!"

How many times have you heard that phrase in your life, especially as it relates to the culture where you live? There is no doubt that American society is changing and in many ways, there are some really big differences in things like morality. Movies, music, and other artistic mediums have definitely changed over the past 50 years, no denying it. There is also a growing hostility towards Christianity as a whole. It's not too serious as I'll later point out, but it is growing. Government has also been on the move, with some very unique things such as the mayor of Houston requiring several major churches to submit their sermons for review (there was a good deal more to this story then most saw, but also, these subpoenas were squashed). 

But, one of my main problems that use the phrase above is the presupposition that our society has ever been in heaven in the first place. It has not. It will not. It can not. But, I'm not sure this the worst news in the world for the church. In fact, there may be a lot of good that can come even when society is dark. How we respond to these changes and live as the bride of Christ in this unique and interesting world will be incredibly crucial in the coming years. So, while I don't see our society as ever having been Christian (something my title infers), I do see us moving away from even making the claim. 

Ever since sin entered the world, the world has been a fallen place and actually has been "going to hell in a handbasket." The exception to this is God's people, first represented by Israel and now represented by the church.  

So first, let's debunk something. As a church, let's put to rest the myth that our country was truly founded as a Christian nation or even because of solid Christian principles and we just need to get back to our roots. We say this all the time, I know there are many Christian principles that were acknowledged in founding our country, but hear me out. One of the #1 reasons America broke off from British rule was for freedom from high taxation. That's completely contrary to Christ's teachings, however. The situation in Israel was the exact same - foreign power, foreign rule, steep foreign taxation. When asked about this though, Jesus says "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21). He doesn't say "dump the tea in the harbor." It's easy to associate revolution or war with a noble cause, it's very difficult to associate either of them with the principles of Jesus. 

But religious freedom is worth fighting for right? Nope. But what about when there are groups persecuting your group? Nope. 

Peter wrote to Christian "exiles" in his first epistle who were experiencing political oppression because of their belief and worship of Christ. 

"Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." (1 Peter 4:12-16)

Now, these people weren't experiencing people taking Christ out of Christmas (which isn't even true because X is a shorthand Χρίστος [Christos - Messiah or Christ]) or getting cut off during an interview on CNN (just google it). They were being fed to lions and executed in any number of atrocious ways. Peter says that they shouldn't be surprised by this. They shouldn't be surprised by government and others taking their very lives. 

So, whenever people want to take "In God We Trust" off of money (which has always been a societal lie, especially when it comes to the paper it's printed on), take the Ten Commandments out of court rooms, take prayer out of schools, and a number of other things that we often cite as the end of times, Peter looks at us and says "Do Not Be Surprised." 

The main reason this should not surprise us is because social institutions and God's kingdom are simply incompatible. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" and He was referring to the social systems and institutions of this world, because he clarifies the statement with "if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting" (John 18:36).

Imagine Jesus as president - would the world really want a president who's foreign policy is enemy love? Would our capitalistic society truly jive with the idea of giving to others and helping the poor until it begins to hurt? 

These two worlds just don't mesh. The church has a different way of doing things completely. The kingdom of God has a different politic than the world in every single way imaginable. This is why Peter says that we shouldn't be surprised. He was writing about this very thing. 

But not being surprised is only the first part. The rest of how we are to live in a Post-Christian society is surmised by the commandment to participate in the sufferings of Christ. This is about loving others even when they are treating you in the worst ways. 

It's not that we are putting our stamp of approval on society. Not in the least. The church has a duty to remain true to the teachings of Christ set forth in Scripture no matter what the environment is. If Christianity is made illegal, American church numbers will go down DRASTICALLY...but it does not reduce the necessity for Christian community or the worship of the Almighty One. The early church met in homes and however else they needed to in order to praise God, even though their society was hunting them down. 

In all this, I hope you can see how the church definitely challenges culture and society at large, but changing culture and society are not our primary goals. We should instead be always seeking to make the church more Christlike. But we should obviously not be surprised when society, culture, and government are not Christlike. We help in changing the hearts of individuals and families, not institutions. 

So, the formula for living in a Post-Christian society? Do not be surprised, endure whatever comes peacefully, focus on the church, and love extravagantly as Jesus did to His persecutors when He hung on a cross and prayed for God to "forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34).  

"What Must I Do To Be Saved?"

Pretty classic question. People have been arguing over that one for hundreds of years. I have been asked that question by people who were Christians because we can't figure it out. 

We have a lot of different answers. Growing up in more conservative Churches of Christ, one of the more classic ways that we have answered that is summarized in five steps: Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, and be Baptized. We have usually put a pretty heavy emphasis on the last one there, and there is pretty good reason for it. After all, it is pretty symbolic of dying to self, being washed with the blood of Christ, and being raised up in newness of life. 

But then you get other people that say "all I have to do is believe" in order to be saved. To them, there is obviously a need for baptism as a form of obedience, but the point of salvation comes when you believe that Jesus is Lord of all and at that point He saves you. There are those within this line of thought that use The Sinner's Prayer to "accept Jesus into their hearts" and the like. Hear me, there ain't a single thing wrong with accepting Jesus into one's heart...but the Sinner's Prayer isn't really biblical (just saying). 

For others still, there is a huge connection to salvation and acting out gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues and the like. These are thought to be the visible sign that the Holy Spirit has come upon one's life and so this is the point of salvation. 

I could probably go on with examples of how people are thought to be saved by Christ, but I am really becoming disenchanted with all of them. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is that the emphasis is put on us in some way or another. So, while Churches of Christ may get dogged on pretty hard for thinking that salvation comes  through a "work" like baptism, everybody pretty much thinks that there is something that we do that brings salvation, whether it's saying a prayer, believing in Jesus, or accepting Him into our hearts. All of that is what we do, and salvation is something that God does. Baptism may be something that I decide to do (it's actually quite passive when you think about it, confirmed by usually being a passive verb in Greek), but saving is something Jesus does. 

The second reason that I'm disenchanted with these things is because we are trying to designate the "point" of salvation. Now, it makes sense why we want this to happen - we want to know when we are safe from the fires of hell. That's pretty understandable in all reality, but being scared of hell is not at all what Jesus wanted us to do in comparison to hoping for heaven. 

The third reason is because all of this stuff is kind of prideful, "I know exactly what's going on with this topic," and really divisive towards the church as a whole and has been for a long dang time. So, I have something to propose that perhaps could bring some unity to our various Christian movements. Note though, this is me thinking out loud, and I'm certainly not abandoning my personal tradition. I would love to hear other opinions on how we can find more unity and read scripture better on this.

Perhaps the most memorable time that this question was asked (at least in my mind) was when the rich young ruler comes to Jesus (Matthew 19:16-22). He asks Jesus what good thing he must do to be have eternal life and Jesus answers in a very peculiar way. He actually seems to kind of dodge the question, which is funny, when He says "Why do you ask me what is good? There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments." I'll do some more unpacking of that idea in a minute, but what's interesting is that Jesus takes the focus away from what good thing the man must do and puts the focus on the only One who is truly good (God). Jesus then just says to keep the commandments. 

This isn't enough for the young ruler though, and so he asks Jesus "which ones?" This guy really wants to stamp his "saved" card and go to sleep in peace. Jesus of course lists off some good commandments and the young ruler feels pretty good because he's been doing all of those things since he was just a kid and asks what he still lacks (I personally doubt he was expecting a reply other than "dude, you're totally good then, go in peace"). This is when Jesus drops the ever so infamous line - "If you want to be complete, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 

This devastates the young man because Jesus asks for the one thing that he is unwilling to give up. Jesus knew what this guy was hanging on to. But I think we need to look at the dialogue as a whole and put ourselves in the man's place. 

Firstly, Jesus says to keep the commands. The young ruler thought he was doing that, but he wasn't. If we were there, we might reply "which ones" and get a plethora of responses from "hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized, accept Jesus in your heart, say a prayer, speak in tongues" and then expect to be good. It is at this point that Jesus would look us in the eye and tell us to follow Him.

When Jesus says to keep the commands, I think He is saying that we need to submit ourselves fully to Him. We want to clarify exactly what this is and that is when the very thing we want to hold onto most is what Jesus says to give away so that we can follow Him whole heartedly. 

What if we started looked at salvation as no single action done on our part but as the process of submitting our entire life to Christ and the following of Him while living in His constant forgiveness? Note: salvation is something God does, so I'm not suggesting this is how we save ourselves.

I know very few people in Churches of Christ that think if a person has decided to submit their life to Christ and got in a car accident on their way to the baptistry that they are messed over. I know very few people who, although they don't see baptism as a necessary task of salvation, do not think that baptism is a command that should be followed in order to be obedient to God and His will. I also know of no one that thinks a person could go through any of these steps, then walk away completely from the life of discipleship and those steps mean anything at all. 

Some of the most committed followers of Jesus that I know have come from faith traditions that are unlike mine. We have disagreed on certain things from time to time, but at the end of the day, they are a disciple and it shows in their lives. These people truly give God everything that they have, but maybe read scripture just a little differently than I do. 

If we submit to God, we will keep the commandments - we will believe He is Lord, we will repent of our sins and confess Jesus is the only way for us to be saved, we will be baptized so that we can partake in His death and be cleansed by His blood, and we will live by the Spirit while walking in newness of life as a disciple that must follow Christ down the darkest of roads for the rest of our lives. All of these things are part of submitting to God. So, what happens if along the way of submitting we die? I tend to think that we are good...don't you?

Why do we label things as necessary and not necessary when all are clearly part of the process God wants for us? Why do we try to mark salvation as if it were some end point instead of the beginning of new life that it truly is? Salvation is entering into newness of life, and that starts by submitting ourselves to God and His will and then living in that for the rest of our days.

Does that mean we won't goof up along the way as we are submitting? Of course not. We gonna mess up all the dang time. But, living in a state of submission means that despite my shortcomings which are ever so present, I am giving that to Jesus and following the commands just like Jesus told the young ruler to do. It is also going to mean that I will constantly be checking my life for material things that I am beginning to become too fond of. But when I live a life of submission, those things are submitted to Christ before they ever even poke their sneaky little head up in my life. Jesus. Wants. Everything.

I am done arguing about the point of salvation and what is necessary and not necessary. I am instead about submitting the entirety of my life to Christ so that He can be glorified through it all. Might this be the way that we are able to find unity amongst ourselves? We are slowly getting over the fact that we all do worship a little differently from place to place. This is the one thing that we seem to hang onto and want to divide over. 

I ask you to join me in this submission. It's a humbling experience. It certainly isn't very American like to give up all our rights for the sake of the cross. But I do believe that it is the answer to the question - "What must I do to be saved?"

What The Gospel "Is" and "Is Not"

What do you think about when you hear the term "Gospel"? Surely you think of The Good News, that's a pretty classic one. That probably brings to mind the idea of proclaiming The Good News to other people. It's a central theme to our faith, as it was the last thing that Jesus said to do before He ascended "Go and proclaim the Gospel to all nations" 

But, sometimes I think we get confused as to what "proclaiming the Gospel to all nations" means. We read verses like "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ" and we know that's important, but what that looks like and means gets pretty screwed up sometimes. So, here's a list of things that proclaiming and being unashamed of the Gospel is Not. To put it another way, here are the most common things that people use to punch their "Gospel" card for the week.

1. Bible Banging (A.K.A. Telling People They Are Going To Hell)

The first and most agreed upon point. Only a select few of us actually think that picketing funerals and holding up signs that tell others they are going to hell is a good technique. But, I know that some of us still play the punishment card before the rewards card. This isn't about escaping hell, it's about having a relationship with the Most High God who loves each and every person He made to insane amounts. Grunting with a KJV and a clinched fist does nothing to promote the good news. 

2. Voting Republican (Or Democrat)

Voting for members of the republican party has grown to be synonymous with being Christian in the United States. Somehow, Jesus came to love capitalism, 2nd amendment rights, and freedom to worship. Sorry, but Jesus doesn't care about any of those things (shoot me a message or phone call if you want to unpack that statement or get an explanation). On the other hand, Jesus doesn't endorse any number of things in the democrat party either. Some Christians have really just reversed this and made Jesus a liberal in their minds. Jesus was not a liberal or a conservative, He was a radical who's kingdom was "not of this world" and operated by a completely different set of standards that are simply inconsistent with the social institutions of the world. After all, do you actually want a president who's foreign policy is enemy love? That's what we, the church, should be about, but the thought of governments acting like this is ridiculous. Voting does not bring the gospel to people. 

3. Sharing Political Articles About Religion

I've seen it time and time before, political articles about religion. "The thing so-and-so said about God that has the liberals FUMING" or "The things about Jesus that the conservatives don't want you to know" or any number of articles. Have you ever stopped to consider that if a political website is sharing an opinion on religion, that opinion may be informed by a worldly perspective versus the other way around (I'm looking at you, Matt Walsh Blog readers)? As I said before, the church has it's own politic. For some reason, churches tend to reflect the culture instead of living counter to it. Churches were every bit as segregated before the Civil Rights Movement as the rest of the world (and unfortunately still are for the most part). Anybody remember The Crusades, Inquisition, or any number of corrupt Popes? Government tends to have a way worse effect on the church than the church has on the government whenever they are close. Sharing these articles is not sharing gospel.

4. Watching, Wearing, and Loving all things Duck Dynasty 

Quite frankly, these people have something to do with why I don't have a huge beard anymore. Also quite frankly, this is kind of the same as the last two points. I am very sorry, but wearing a Duck Dynasty t-shirt, shooting fowl out of the sky, and drinking sweet tea do not fulfill The Great Commission. Disciples will be known for their love, not for their support of Phil Robertson. Somehow, we have made gospel out of the idea that we need to stand up and support the Robertson clan and what they stand for. I'm not saying you can't like the show (I personally don't get it, but it's whatevs), I'm just saying that Duck Dynasty is the current face of Christianity, and there's honestly alot wrong with that picture (although I fully admit, most days I also struggle to wear the face of Christianity in a truly Christlike way). 

5. Eating Chic-Fil-A Sandwiches

This relates back to the last point, which relates back to the last few points (there's a theme!). Remember back when Chic-Fil-A took their stand in support of traditional marriage? There are many things I could say about that situation, but I'll leave it at the fact that some people got hacked off and spoke out against Chic-Fil-A's stance. I remember it vividly because I was at a church camp when Mike Huckabee or some other political figure (who'da thunk it?) announced a "Support Chic-Fil-A" day and thousands upon thousands of Christians flocked to their doors in the name of a Christian cause. Although many would deny it, there was the sense that people were checking off their "Spread The Good News" box for the week by eating 12-count chicken nuggets. If eating chicken could get me in to heaven...well I'll just say that it doesn't and move on. 

What The Gospel Is

It really does translate to "Good News." One of the things you may not know about the word is that it actually does not directly relate to Jesus dying for the sins of humanity, God loving people, or the hope of the resurrection. It can have something to do with those things, but only as those things relate to the concept of Kingdom. Whenever you read about gospel in the New Testament, there is almost always a message of kingdom nearby. Think about it, Jesus was proclaiming the gospel before He died (check the end of Matthew 5). The gospel message is that God's kingdom is being continuously established, Christ is its King, and things change when you fall under the rule of the Lord Jesus. Perhaps you can see now why I focus so much on the political side of what gospel is not. The answer to what gospel truly is relates greatly to politics, but a very unique politic. This politic is so unique that it cannot be brought about by earthly kingdoms. It can only be brought about through the church. Government cannot further this kingdom, it usually only manages to get in the way.

At the end of the day, I have just as hard of a time bringing this message to people as the next guy. It is hard to speak this message into people's lives. You know what is easy for me though? Putting up tweets, facebook statuses, and even blog posts about it. However, I feel as though there is a relational aspect of Gospel that all of the areas above, as well as myself, fail miserably to promote. We cannot share the gospel with others if we do not work to have a relationship with them. Why else would they want to listen to us? 

So, I ask you to join me and stop believing the utter bullcrap of a lie that any of these non-relational, political, or cultural "stands" is truly being "not ashamed of The Gospel of Christ"

Let us love others and show them both with our lives and with our words that the Kingdom of God is here, and it changes lives. 

My Tattoos & Their Messages

I started getting tattoos when I was a sophomore in college. I had learned that Leviticus really didn't apply to the situation since I wasn't involved in pagan worship and since I fully planned on clipping off the edge of my beard at times (although there was a stint in my life where I almost abided by that one). 

All my tattoos are lessons that I have learned and things I want to remember and proclaim to others. I'm slowly becoming a messenger like Ezekiel with object lessons to proclaim my news. This is what I have so far. (Note: I will very poorly try to transliterate the foreign language into english letters)

My first tattoo is on my shoulder and reads "Yahweh agapesen" (Hebrew and Greek) which translates to "God loved." Yahweh is God's covenant name and from what I can tell started being used more heavily around the time when Moses encountered the burning bush. This is why this word and it's derivatives are at times translated as "I AM." The word carries an idea that God is present with His people, as He was in the plagues, in the wilderness, His presence was felt. Agapesen is straight outta John 3:16 and is translated as "He loved." The word though is in a tense that is kinda like looking at a scroll that is time. God loved then, He loves now, and forevermore will love even though we translate it as past tense. So, it says "God loved" but in a Biblical pun that I intended, it also says "I AM Loved." This fact defines much about me. 

My second tattoo was a follow up to my first. It reads "Ahavtee Theon" which translates to "I Love God." Nothing too special about this except for I reversed the Hebrew word for God with the Greek and the Greek word for Love with the Hebrew word. Although in the tattoo, the Hebrew still comes first. This is my reaction to the fact that God loves me. This defines how I react in return to that love. I decided to do this tattoo in negative space, my skin being the words. I did this for aesthetic reasons but also to symbolize that no matter how dark things around me may be, this is something that I want to stand out.  

My third tattoo is essentially the reverse symbol from Uno. Yep, biblical language to a card game symbol. However, it means alot to me. I started learning about Reversal Theory, which is what nerdy Bible peeps came up with to describe the recurring theme of scripture where things get reversed. The first will be last and the last will be first. The blind are made to see. Blessed are the poor in spirit and a number of other undesired traits. Death is victory. I personally went from being dead in my sins to alive in Christ. So, this tattoo is response to the previous two. Because God loved me and because I love Him, I've been reversed by the power of the cross and I now live a reversed lifestyle in an ungodly world. 

Tattoo number four is by far my largest and most symbolic piece. It's a dove made out of guns. Now, obviously that requires some unpacking. I got the idea from art pieces made from weapons that were used during the Mozambique genocide. The country of Mozambique was in civil war for around 15 years if my memory serves me right. Once there was peace though, it was volatile because everybody and their grandma had an AK-47. A Christian group inspired by Isaiah 2:4 (They shall beat their swords into plowshares and will no longer learn of war) came in and sought to disarm the country. In exchange for weapons, they would give the people tools of agriculture. A shovel for a rifle, and so on. One village exchanged a whole cache of weapons for a tractor. The group took the weapons and made art pieces out of them, which are really quite extraordinary. This is where the idea came from. The dove is a symbol of peace in almost every culture. The body of the dove is an apple and the stem of the apple refers to the Tree of Life. The apple itself is an allusion to Eden, when humans tried to "get on God's level" and eat of the fruit. I think we still try to do that when we say who deserves to live and who deserves to die. That is a judgment call that only God is righteous enough to make. There are also three words incorporated into the red of the apple. These words are in their original language and are Eiraynay (Greek), Shalom (Hebrew), and Salaam (Arabic). All three words translate to "peace" and also represent cultures that have not always been peaceful, especially with each other. So, it's a symbolic piece that symbolizes peace.

My most recent tattoo is an armband and an inksplot. The armband consists of 99 shapes and then there is the 1 inksplot. This is an allusion to the parable of the 1 sheep that goes astray and the shepherd cares so much for that sheep that he goes and risks all to find it. It's a reminder to look out for the sheep who's gone astray - the ostracized, the outcast - and the fact that God cares for them deeply. The inksplot is messy, it's not like the others, but it's also redeemed by the blood which it alludes too. 

So there you go. There's the story behind my ink. I share it every chance I get.

I have ideas for more. I really don't know when I'll stop, but for now I keep getting reminders about how to live and I keep being presented with opportunities to share my faith because of the ink on my body.

Stay tuned for more stories.