Palm Sunday and False Worship

It was Sunday before the Passover. The crowds had come out from Jerusalem in throngs to worship Jesus as the promised Messiah. They laid their own clothes on the road before Him in a costly gesture of recognition. He rode upon a donkey just as the prophesies foretold. They cried out “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” But—Jesus wept. He cried over Jerusalem which stood before Him, mourning the fact that the city didn’t recognize Him, didn’t recognize this day. But here’s the strange part: the crowd worshiping Him, waiving palm branches—they had come out from Jerusalem. So what does Jesus mean that they didn’t recognize Him?

There’s a hint in the words the crowd declared. The phrase, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” is taken from Ps. 118. This was a Psalm that the Jews traditionally sang as they went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles. This was a feast that pre-figured the coming Kingdom of God. It was a celebration of harvest and joy. They would also use palm branches in their worship on the Feast of Tabernacles. But that’s the problem: Jesus wasn’t coming to Jerusalem on the Feast of Tabernacles. He was coming for Passover, for the sacrifice of the Lamb.

Jesus wept because He knew the crowd didn’t recognize Him for who he was and what He really came for. He knew they didn’t worship Him for who He was, but rather for what they could get out of Him. They were more than happy to worship a Messiah who was going to establish God’s Kingdom and reign over Israel in peace and prosperity, kick out the occupying Romans and generally make life great. But that’s not exactly what happened. When Jesus didn’t come and set Himself up as the new Ruler over Israel, didn’t drive out the Roman, the crowd’s tune changed. In fact, we read that many in Jerusalem just days later joined in the cry before Pilate, “Crucify Him!” That only showed that most of them weren’t worshiping Jesus in the first place, only what they could get from Him.

Too often those who claim to worship Jesus have a similar approach. We are happy to worship as long as things are going smoothly, as long as we think that Jesus will give us what we want from Him. We look to Him as a means to our various ends of improvement, comfort, prosperity, etc. But what about when that doesn’t happen? What about when sickness is not met with healing but with death? What about when things go from bad to worse? What about when following Jesus means that our family turns away from us, that we lose a job, that we suffer? We’re all for the feast of joy and happy to worship Jesus when we think He’s come to give it to us right now. But what about when what’s actually coming is slaughter? The truth is, sometimes Jesus doesn’t give us what we hoped for or expected. When that’s the case, what is our reaction? Will our cries turn from, “Blessed is He…” to “Crucify Him!”? Do we get bitter, resentful, even hateful towards God? If so, we show that we weren’t really worshiping Jesus in the first place, only what He could give us. Like the consumeristic crowd outside of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, our worship is often false because we see Jesus as a means rather than the End in Himself. He is worthy of our worship not because of what He gives us, but because He has given us Himself.

This article is based on an excerpt from my sermon on Palm Sunday 2015, available in Russian here. If you enjoyed this article and want to catch future posts, don't forget to subscribe to the blog.

The Myth of an Un-contextualized Gospel

You have never heard the un-contextualized Gospel. There is one simple reason: it doesn’t exist. Every Gospel conversation or presentation you’ve ever heard has already been contextualized. If it wasn't, you couldn’t hear it. In a bygone era of the foreign missions enterprise, before anyone came up with the term “contextualize”, people used to speak of “indigenizing” the Gospel. But that term implied that the missionary was seeking to take his own civilized, “pure” Gospel and smuggle it into the receiving culture in native garb. This was all temporary though. The missionaries’ cultural goal was to get the natives to adopt “sensible Christian values”. Of course, this generally meant white, individualistic European and American cultural values. But there was a problem that few missionaries seemed to realize at the time: the Gospel of American and European society had been just as contextualized for them as it had to be for anyone else. This idea only began to be explored in depth later in the 20th century. In reality, the way the Gospel is contextualized in our modern, Western society would look alien to first-century, Near Eastern Christians. Certainly we are not so naive as to think that ours is the first culture that has a grasp on the "pure" Gospel. No culture, including mine or yours, has a monopoly on the Good News. While I’m sure there are more, I want to give you three problems we bring about when we shirk a well-thought-out contextualization of the Gospel. 

A Cultural Superiority Complex

First, by thinking that we possess an “un-contextualized” Gospel, we artificially set ourselves on a plane that does not exist. This is most obvious in the fact that each one of us heard the Gospel in a language we understand. As soon as any particular language is used to convey the Gospel, contextualization has already begun. The claim falters literally as soon as we open our mouths. Nevertheless, it is tempting to assert that ours is an un-contextualized Gospel because it implies the superiority of our own culture. It tickles our pride to think that we have an exclusive claim to the “pure” Gospel. But despite our seeming conviction that the American Evangelical sub-culture is the closest thing to Eden (God save us!), there is no place for bigotry in the body of Christ. To assert that we have an un-contextualized Gospel is to say that the Gospel in its purest form meshes ideally with our Western, individualistic, consumerist way of life. Thankfully, that’s very unlikely.

Yet this underlying assumption of cultural superiority is why some Christians get fidgety when the topic of contextualization crops up. There is an unspoken belief that changing the cultural forms in which the Gospel is presented will automatically lessen or “defile” its purity. Perhaps what we are really afraid of is letting go of the privileged status we’ve given our own preferred cultural forms. We may even be willing to don the trappings of another sub-culture for a short time for the sake of getting our message out, but we are unlikely to admit that these forms are as valid as our own. Fear of contextualization is often just a thin veil for a cultural superiority complex. 

A Shallow View of the Gospel

Secondly, in refusing the endeavor of Gospel contextualization, we rob ourselves of a deeper, more well-rounded understanding of the Gospel. Lesslie Newbigin was a British missionary who lived in the 20th century and served in India for some 40 plus years.  He writes in The Open Secret of a mutual benefit for the missionary and the receiving culture. He warned that we must not see our project of contextualizing the Gospel as merely uni-directional. The missionary himself must allow the unique worldview of the receiving culture to critique his own culturally myopic view of the Gospel. The interaction between the cultures of messenger and listener must, of course, be rooted in the Word of God. We all have a tendency to read the Bible through our own cultural lens. After all, we have no other with which to view it. Sometimes a person from another culture will read the same text we do, but come to a somewhat different conclusion on its meaning or implications. This forces both missionary and “native” to continually return to the Word and re-examine their understanding. Could it be that some aspect of what the missionary had hitherto believed is actually a by-product of his own culture's bias, rather than rooted in the Word of God itself? The interchange of contextualization refines and deepens our understanding; the messenger and the receiver both grow together in the Gospel.

As an American missionary who has been on the foreign field for over a third of my life, I can attest to this reality. Only in stepping outside of our own cultural comfort zones can we come to see the flaws inherent within it. The same is true of the American Christian sub-culture. Too many Christians have begun to view the Gospel through the narrow lens of the American-Evangelical sub-culture. What we fail to realize is that ours is also a contextualized understanding of the Gospel. It's simply tuned to the cultural values of middle-class, Western individualism and consumerism. In taking on the daunting, humbling project of contextualizing the Gospel to others, we also open up the possibility of having our own misperceptions corrected. Contextualization done well and humbly leads to a richer insight into the Gospel for both messenger and receiver.

Incarnation Implications

Lastly, when we refuse to embrace the call to contextualize the Gospel, we are rejecting something in the essence of the Gospel itself. It only takes a cursory reading of the book of Acts to see that the early church took contextualization seriously from the beginning. Those parts of the church which refused the project out of a cultural superiority complex quickly cut themselves off from the power and movement of the Holy Spirit. The Judaizers were a prime example of this.

But there is more. By spurning contextualization not only do we ignore the example of the early church; we contradict the nature of the Gospel. There is no greater “contextualization” than the incarnation of Christ. When God came in the flesh, He showed that there was almost no limit to His willingness to contextualize the Gospel so that we might understand. Jesus was not an ethereal philosophy but a flesh-and-blood man who brought the salvation of God into the cultural context of first-century Israel. His message was was spoken in Aramaic, often couched in agrarian parables sensitively honed to the context of His audience.  

Early in its history, the church rejected a heresy called “docetism”. This heresy taught that Jesus didn’t really become a man. He merely had the outward appearance of a man, but certainly would never soil His perfect “heavenly culture” with the trappings of human flesh. This heresy was roundly condemned at the council of Nicea. All true Christians today readily acknowledge that God Himself unabashedly took on real flesh, conforming Himself to our cultural forms. But the ironic part is that we are often not willing to similarly humble ourselves. We only grudgingly stoop to contextualize the Gospel to others who are culturally different from us—if we do so at all—though the cost for us is much less than it was for Jesus. While we cling to the doctrine of the incarnation, we deny its implications. Christ took on our cultural forms to bring the Gospel to people who would then continue the project of contextualization to bring the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The Great Commission itself implies the challenge of astutely, winsomely, humbly contextualizing the Gospel. In the end, the call for Christians to embrace the project of Gospel contextualization is merely a call to follow the example of Jesus. “Everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” (Lk. 6:40)

what is worship?

It might seem like too simple of a question.  As Christians, we talk about worship frequently.  We say that we were created to worship.  But what does that mean?  If we're talking about something that is, ultimately, the purpose of our life, we'd better have a firm grasp on what we're talking about.  Too many Christians seemingly think that glorifying God consists in the bare realization of the facts of God's power, majesty, etc.  The sky is blue, 2+2=4, and God is almighty.  Perhaps the concept of worship is even taken to mean acknowledgment of these facts with a measure of fear. 

However, this cannot be what is meant biblically by the idea of “worshiping God”.  All we need to do to make that clear is answer this question: does satan realize the facts of God’s omnipotence and majesty?  Better than we do!  He has SEEN God’s unveiled power and glory directly!  Is he terrified in the presence of God?  Does he have an abundant “measure” of fear?  Yes!  James says, the “demons believe and tremble”.  Yet, pay attention: neither satan nor demons worship God.  Therefore, recognition of facts, even with a measure of fear, is NOT worship!  A Christian who thinks, by acknowledging the facts of God’s power and majesty, even with a little fear, that he is worshiping God is doing no such thing!  If that’s you, you’re lying to yourself.  What then is the biblical meaning of worship to God?  This is an important question, right?

The opposite of worship is not denial of fact, but rather blasphemy.  Satan realizes God’s power and majesty, but he has absolutely no pleasure in it.  He is disgusted by it and filled with anger because of God’s majesty.  This should give us a hint as to the essence of biblical worship.  If the opposite of worship is to be disgusted by God, then worship itself is, above all, to find pleasure in God.

The word “worship” in Scripture is used, and we use it in Christian context, interchangeably with the word “praise.”  But what is praise?  Think outside of the religious context for a moment.  When we watch a great movie, we praise it to our friends, “oh, you have to watch that!”  When we eat a delicious meal, we praise it, “this is amazing!”  Praise then is the expression and culmination of our delight in something.  Not only is it the expression of delight, but the expressing completes the delight.  This is what it means, biblically, to praise God: to express our delight in Jesus and therein, our delight finds it’s culmination.

Therefore, biblically speaking, it is impossible to worship Jesus if we do not enjoy Him.  If you think you worship Jesus, but do not have any enjoyment in Him, you are not really worshiping.  Jesus convicted the Pharisees of this very thing, saying “you worship me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me.”

To worship Jesus, to love Him, in the biblical sense, is to delight in Him as a bride in her groom.  This is the heart of true worship.  True worship is not self-improvement motivated by fear and duty.  Sadly, that is what many Christians call “worship”.  Rather it is rapture, delight in the arms of our Beloved Jesus.  We may find this difficult to understand, because we have got this stoic, pharisaic idea into our heads that worship of God can’t mean enjoyment of Him. We've been told that one must suppress and deny desire for the Lord's sake.  CS Lewis writes that our problem is not that we seek pleasure too much but that we seek it not enough.  "We are content to fool about with drink, sex and ambition, not even suspecting that we are offered infinite joy in Christ."  Lest it be misunderstood, this is not making a god of pleasure.  John Piper states pointedly in his book Desiring God, “[this understanding] is not making a god of pleasure.  Rather, it is saying that you have already made a god out of whatever you find most pleasure in.”  The words of Scripture confirm enjoyment as the essence of worship.  Ps. 16:11, “In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”  Are you truly worshiping?

playground restoration

This summer our church took on some community service projects. One that we've completed was the restoration of a playground near our house.  As the Lord provides opportunities and resources for these projects, we hope to continue to reach out in this way to our community.  While the group of volunteers from our church was working on this playground, many people approached with amazement and asked why we would do this.  It was a blessing to share with them that Jesus loves our city and He told us to.  In a land where far too often people are happy to get ahead at the cost of ripping others off and the government is primarily concerned only about maintaining power for itself rather than caring for the public, it is truly counter-cultural to serve in a self-sacrificial way.  We believe God is using these projects to reach and convict hearts about the reality of the gospel.  If you'd like to be involved in sponsoring a project, please contact me, or visit our church's giving page.  Below is our vision statement for these community projects and a few pics of the playground we restored this summer.

Vision for Community Service Projects

As we enjoy the free grace and love that Jesus shows us, this necessarily births in us a desire to share that grace and love freely ("freely you have received, freely give." Mt. 10:8).  It is in allowing that grace to not only pierce our hearts but to be reflected through our lives and joining in His work to bless others that our enjoyment of Jesus is multiplied.

God came and gave grace to us who were undeserving and ill-deserving at great cost to Himself. We not only recognize but image that fact in serving others who have not asked for or earned it and at our own cost (of time, talent, and treasure). God "makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." (Mt. 5:45) In this active thanks for His grace, we are further rooted in it, as where our treasure is, there our heart will be also.

Through these projects, we seek to live in love in a way that is received as such by those we serve. The most loving thing we could do for a person is to share the gospel with him. However, if he is not open, he will see it as us just trying to cram our opinion down his throat. If we show our love in a tangible way, it will give such a person cause to ask why. Scripture itself says "let us not love only in word and tongue, but in deed and truth." (I Jn. 3:18)

The culmination and goal of this is particularly to reach the world. It is these projects as an outworking of our own delight in Jesus, a manifestation of grace and a tangible act of love that is one way we seek to reach the world with the gospel. These projects will not themselves preach the gospel. However, they are a powerful witness that we as Christians have a truly self-sacrificial love for others and do desire the good of those even who reject us. Our hope is that these projects will be compelling in themselves as a manifestation of the reality of the gospel and open doors to share of the One who is the true Servant. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 5:16)

Now the pictures...

before:

 in process:

after:

kirk cameron, salvador dali, jrr tolkien and Jesus

it's possible that the mere combination of those names has left your head swimming and you're thinking "what in the world could they all have to do with each other?".  in a word: art.  in four words: the gospel and art.  i recently taught on the gospel and art and how the two relate to each other.  i'd like to suggest each of the first three men in the title as a paradigm for different approaches to art in light of the gospel.

first it's worth stating that there are basically two views in the world, two answers to the question: why art?

the first answer is the answer of modern western society, so proudly roared by the MGM lion (until he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy): ars gratis artis, or "art for art's sake".  the highest purpose in art, it is said, is self expression.  art should have no didactic purpose, no lessons or messages, lest it be decried as cheap propaganda.  this view looks at art through the lens of art and so folds in upon itself.  the abstractionist movement took this concept to new heights when things like a plain, black square, soup-cans, or an unmade bed were unabashedly paraded as masterpieces.  even classic aesthetics were not most important.  of course, the catch in this approach is that to say there is (and should not be) any didactic purpose in art is to engage in didactics: it is to say that the most important thing, the only acceptable goal in art, is the glorification of self. it is the absolutizing of the individual.  propaganda at it's best, i'd say.

the more classic answer to "why art?" was "for the sake of beauty."  as far back as aristotle, aesthetics were seen as something objective and as the purpose of art.  often aesthetic beauty was even tied to moral beauty.  this view attempted to look at the world through the lens of art.

each of these approaches encapsulates an important part of the light that the gospel sheds on art.  the story of the very first Artist and His very first masterpiece gives important insight into this question.  in Genesis, we read of God creating the universe with all of it's glorious stars and planets, trees and flowers, birds, fish, animals and the like.  God's refrain upon creating these things is a recognition that "it was good".  not "well, I think it's nice, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  we find in the very creation an undercurrent of a true and objective aesthetic value.  however, that is not the end of the story.  the great favor the abstractionists have done us (whether you like soup-cans or not), was to underscore the question: "and who gets to define beauty?"  as it turns out, there is only One who can: God.  the point that is thrown back in the face of modernism's classic aesthetics is that aristotle or da vinci have no more right to define beauty that malevich, warhol, or pollock.  they are absolutely right.  the abstractionists have removed man from his pedestal as the ultimate judge of beauty.  man never did belong there.  but God always has.  therefore the gospel approach to art on the one hand recognizes there is an objective beauty in the universe, of which God is the source and judge.  however, in humility we should also realize that no one person has the monopoly on that definition, just as no person can exhaustively define God, and therefore our approach should be to discover or strive for beauty in art, rather than arrogantly proclaim we've monopolized it (and bottled it up for sale in christian bookstores.)

but how should we as believers in Jesus "do art"?  the truth is that, despite the supposed aversion to didactic messages in art in modern society, no art lacks this element.  another (and far more aesthetic) way of saying this is: all art tells a story.  whether its a song, painting, dance, movie, book, etc.  so the question we are really asking when we say "how should we do art?" is "what story should we tell?"  as christians the answer to this should be obvious: the gospel.  the narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration through and for Jesus Christ.  (not that every work of art has to capture all of these aspects at once to be formed by the gospel.)  the question then is how do we tell the gospel in and through art?  i suggest there are 3 main ways that christians attempt this.  here's where we get back to the figures from the title who epitomize each approach:

1) kirk cameron: now, i watched growing pains in my childhood just like any 30-ish american.  but for the sake of illustration, i'd like to focus on a little series of "christian" movies called left behind in which cameron was the lead.  to continue the lens analogy, this approach is looking at the gospel through the lens of the world (not of art).  that is, in order to get our message across, we are willing to stoop to popular forms of art (usually movies more than anything).  we try to "copy" the world's forms to get unbelievers to hear our story.  this approach is, first of all, mercenary.  there is no real value in the art produced. rather, it is just a means to an end.  i'd argue that's not even a biblical approach.  when God made the first flowers, He didn't say "well, that'll be good one day if it leads someone to pray the sinner's prayer."  nope!  He said it is good in itself.  it has intrinsic value and worth as art, as a small reflection of God's own beauty and glory.  secondly, this approach produces bad art.  art is merely a means to another end, and so, because it is second priority, ends up being second rate (no offense to those of you who really think the left behind movies are flawless examples of cinematic mastery....  pfwhahaha!  sorry, that's too funny.  okay, honestly, i think you're nuts. :)  lastly, this approach rarely even accomplishes our mercenary goal, because the art produced is a) bad, so people who aren't being paid to go by their youth pastor are likely to skip it and b) blatant (notice that these kinds of movies almost always have someone uber-schmaltzy sharing the sinner's prayer with an open Bible or something to that effect), so an unbeliever who does wander in is doubly turned off (by bad art and blatant "propagandizing".)

2) savador dali:  dali was a surrealist artist in 20th century spain.  though he was raised catholic, he was, as far as we know, not a christian.  however, he did not escape his upbringings as, at the very least, themes in some of his art.  one of my favorite paintings of his is corpus hypercubus (pictured at the top of this post).  the second paradigm, illustrated in this painting, can be described as looking at the gospel through the lens of art.  in this approach the gospel is blatantly the subject, but it's different from the first approach, in that the art itself is valued and actually adds something to the presentation of the gospel.  dali's painting shows Christ on the cross, yet the cross is unusual.  it is actually a three-dimensional representation of a hypercube, a four-dimensional figure.  in using this figure as the cross, the statement is that the death of Christ transcends human understanding.  all art in this second category could be considered "devotional art."  but when this kind of art is done well, it draws unbelievers much more than the first approach.  for something to be good christian art, it first has to be good art.  any art which is intended to be used for devotional purposes should most likely be done in this second approach (hymns, illustrated bibles, etc.)  interestingly, catholics, orthodox and anglicans (and sometimes non-believers) tend to be better at this approach than many evangelicals.  perhaps it is because they have a continued tradition of devotional art, where we as evangelicals (and our predecessors) have taken iconoclasm to an extreme and rid ourselves of artistic appreciation and ability all together.

3) jrr tolkien: if you don't know by now, i will tell you: the lord of the rings is by far my favorite fiction book ever.  tolkien was a devout christian (catholic) who actually led cs lewis to Christ.  tolkien used a very different method than the first approach in his creative writing.  rather than looking at the gospel, he used the gospel as his lens to look at the world.  tolkien was fascinated by languages, mythology, ancient culture and in writing his masterpiece, choose to look at that part of the world that interested him through the lens of the gospel.  it is no coincidence that the lord of the rings is the best selling single fiction story of all time (after a tale of two cities).  a little investigation shows how the story echoes the gospel:  aragorn, the peasant king, rises from humble obscurity to be the king of the whole realm.  gandalf, the human who is more than human, fights a demon, falling into the abyss and at last defeats him on the mountain top.  in the fight he loses his life, but it brought back to life as a glorified gandalf.  the whole story echoes the gospel, which is why people are so drawn to it.  it is subtle and so doesn't push away non-christians.  it is great art and so reflects the glory of God.  the art, therefore, that has the most potential to reach the hearts of people who do not know Christ is when we look at the world through the lens of the gospel, make great art to the glory of God and allow Him to use those hints of the Great Story in our art to draw many to Himself.

i'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially if you are an artist of some form yourself.

(btw, an audio version of this teaching is available in russian here.)

you might be a pharisee if

i've been reading through the gospel of matthew lately and recently came to chapter 23.  this chapter always blows me away and challenges me each time i read it.  it's the chapter where Jesus goes off full-force on the pharisees and "woes" them in one of the most passionate and what must've been emotion-filled moments in His earthly ministry.  i thought i'd take the "woes" and put them into a list form (how pharisaic of me :) and re-phrase them to a more modern context as a way to allow the Holy Spirit to challenge the pharisee that dwells in all of us.  so, you might be a pharisee if:

1. you consider yourself a spiritual authority qualified to dictate to others. you see yourself as the mediator between God and men.
2. you talk a lot about God but do not live it out.
3. you like to tell others what God expects them to do but aren't willing to do it yourself.
4. you do your religion so that others will see you and praise you.
5. your spirituality is defined by external things (think bumper stickers, keychains and other Jesus-paraphernalia, christian radio on the pre-set buttons, etc.) rather than by inward reality of relationship with God and love of others.
6. you come to church to be seen there by others rather than to meet with Jesus.
7. you crave recognition from people for whatever ministry you might be doing.
8. you really love whatever title it is you have in the church and want people to use it as much as possible. (i.e., "Pastor" is now your new first name).
9. you present Christianity as an exclusive club rather than open to anyone. people who are not in your clique can't come in: people who don't dress like you, talk like you, vote like you, etc. can't really be "good Christians".
10. your religion hasn't made you any more compassionate or generous toward the needy/broken.
11. you pray long and sing worship loud because others are listening, not because God is listening.
12. when someone new comes into the church, rather than rejoice for God's grace, you set about to "fix" him.  you burden him will all of your legalism and turn him into a graceless, obnoxious zealot (like yourself).
13. you have falsely dichotomized your life into spiritual/secular categories.  you relegate God to a certain corner of your life, not seeking to know Him in all of life.
14. you are strict and hung up on the little external matters of obedience (smoking is the unpardonable sin, your movie collection would be approved by mickey mouse and your vocabulary sounds suspiciously like ned flanders') but you are completely content with your own greed, lack of grace to others, indifference towards those who are suffering, and pride and contempt in your heart towards anyone who doesn't follow your rules.
15. you are very careful to hide your self-indulgence under a thick layer of looking holy.  as long as you can schmooze at church with the right people, you think you're getting away with it. (you're not.)
16. you compare yourself to people in much harder situations than yourself (divorced, single-parent, unemployed, abused, recovering addict, poor, etc.) and look down on them and tell yourself you'd do better in their shoes, though you've never been in them.
17. lastly, you might be a pharisee if anything on this list made you mad. :)

happy repenting!

serving the city

this ukrainian independence day (august 24th) we continued the tradition we began last year of a church picnic / beach clean-up day.  our desire in doing this is to "seek the good of the city" (Jer. 29:7) and to show people the love of God in a very tangible way.  we believe that such community service is a vital part of reaching the city for Christ.  we have also been going out this summer and doing street witnessing every week, but the fact is that those whose hearts are not yet open to the gospel, though it is the greatest "good" we could do them to share Jesus with them, do not yet perceive it as such.  in taking on projects to practically do good on a level people who are not yet saved can recognize, we are able to show them the love and care of God in a way they can understand it.  since in ukraine there is really no concept of "littering" or "pack it in, pack it out", the parks and beaches all look about like this:

after a little of this...

(and by little i mean over 1,000 gallons (4,000 liters) of trash collected...)
the beach looked like this:

we had quite a number of people stop us and say, "this is great!  i wish everyone cared about our city like this.  why are you doing this?"  we were able to answer them simply "because Jesus loves this city and we love Him."  a few of the responses were ones of shock: "really!?  you guys are from a CHURCH!?  that's the kind of church i'd visit."  our desire is to take on other community improvement projects as God leads us and resources allow.  one thing we've had on our hearts for a long time is to repair some of the dilapidated playgrounds around the city and in so doing serve the mothers and young children that play there.  please pray with us that these seeds of simple service would grow in people's hearts to the glory of God.

eco-indulgences

on my very long flight back from america, i couldn't help but notice an ad for the next stage in development of earth worship.  now delta has teamed up with the nature conservancy to add a "purchase carbon offset" option when you buy your airline ticket.  what this works out to being is essentially an "indulgence": you know you are about to commit transgression by jet fuel in purchasing an airline ticket, however, in order to placate your guilty conscience and appease the wrath of mother earth against you for such a heinous crime, you can now purchase ahead of time a "carbon offset", or as i like to call it, an "eco-indulgence". (copyright! :)  of course, just as the indulgences of the popes were really just excuses to line their pockets and licenses for people to sin, i can't see how buying a "carbon offset" is much more than an excuse to continue polluting "guilt free" and i can't help but wonder who's pockets are getting "greener" off the green guilt-trip.  i'm all for being a good and responsible steward of the creation God has entrusted to us (for a fascinating, Biblical basis and approach for being "green", listen to this.)  but the avatar-esque, can't-breathe-without-feeling-guilty-for-your-carbon-output mindset has led to a very interesting brand of religion.... and like any religion has led to its own brand of self-righteousness.  and in this case, i guess righteousness is for sale.

ukraine is a land like no other (except maybe russia :)

from time to time as i walk around the experience that is my life in ukraine, i run into things that i realize are very bizarre to people who are not from here.  since i've been living here for over 8 years now, i have to force myself to remember that these things strike most foreigners as very odd, since i have just come to accept most of them (granted, not all of them).  so for your education and amusement purposes, just a few pictures from the last month or so:

this picture probably doesn't explain itself well unless you've seen one before.  for those not familiar with ukrainian ritual, this is a funeral.  you'll notice that the crowd is gathered right outside the apt. building.  no, this is not a wake.  the body is in the coffin right there next to the stairwell (didn't get a close-up out of respect for the friends and family of the deceased).  the colorful bars off to the left are the playground equipment (abby was swinging on an incredibly squeaky swing before we made her stop so as not to provoke the ire of the crowd).  the most interesting part about this is if you live in the stairwell where the person died, you get to walk right up to and past the coffin with bags full of groceries as babuska's cry over their loved one.  this might all seem very tasteless, but i have to say i prefer it.  death here is not tucked away and denied the way it is in america (or i imagine western europe?).  it's right there in your face (outside your kitchen window, actually) ... a reality to be reckoned with.  it is not disguised and sanitized:  no funeral homes, no formaldehyde (hence same or next day burials) and a simple pine box. 

on a similar note: the morgue.  (don't ask me why i was there). 

these are shots of our local morgue.  the first shot shows that in the waiting hall, there is a typewriter from i'd guess about 40+ years ago.  i'm not sure if they're keeping it around until it attains "antique status" and then hock it to provide for a lock on the door to the "dissection hall" (seriously, there wasn't one.  just a sign that said "no entrance without permission!").  or maybe it's just a statement that the typewriter itself has met it's end.  ah, modern art... nah, probably the first option.

the second picture is a soviet style plaque of a woman weeping over the grave of a loved one.  the great part is that these metal figures are nailed onto the door of an old wardrobe.  you can still see the old hinges at the top.  nothing says "our condolences" like dismantled furniture.

next, a sign on the doctor's office door:

the working hours of the doctor in this particular section of the hospital are from 8:00 until 14:36.  yes, that's right, 14:36 (2:36pm).  the funny part is i'm willing to bet he never sticks around that late anyway. 

the last picture would be the funniest if it weren't real.  below is the sign that you see as soon as you step onto the property of a certain church here in ukraine:

i

for those who don't read russian, it says: "we do not allow: smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, improper language, walking on the grass, picking flowers, walking dogs, leaving trash."  seriously, is that really the first statement you want to make to visitors?  if i were not a Christian, i'd turn around before i ever hit the door (i'm a pastor and i almost turned around anyway).  sadly, this sign typifies the attitude and bent of the majority of churches in ukraine; in a word, rules (and mostly petty ones at that).  it's all about what you cannot do, about ridiculous codes, and little to do with the heart of Jesus.  the sad part of course is that this is the way a lot of Christians present themselves to the world (not just in ukraine either) and the way a lot of non-Christians perceive the church (ned flanders, anyone?).  the fact is a lot of "Christians" have no idea who Christ really is (and pass their ignorance on to non-Christians).  i bet if they let Jesus make the sign at that church, it would say something more along the lines of, "we do not allow: self-righteousness, arrogance, gossip, walking on people, picking fights, barking at others, and trashing your neighbor."  the more Christians i meet here, the more convinced i am how desperately this country needs to hear the Gospel of Grace: that Jesus didn't come to make more Pharisees, but to rebuke them, and to make lovers of God instead.

four principles for christian unity

(if you're confused as to why there is a picture of bacon here, a) keep reading but b) why not!? :)

a few weeks back, we went through Romans 14:20-24 and looked at how to deal with your convictions and those of other believers.  i thought i'd share the principles from that passage on how to rightly hold and use your personal convictions as a Christian and how to treat another person in his convictions:

1) "all things indeed are pure."  in other words, if the Bible doesn't say something is sin, you can't universally define it as sin.  if the Bible is silent on a particular issue, or gives freedom, or doesn't set forth a specific stance, then no Christian (no matter how insightful he thinks he is) has the right to declare it as sin for all people.  there are plenty of things the Bible does say are sin, and pride is one of the most often repeated.  as soon as you take any of your personal convictions and try to force it on others, you have become a proud pharisee.  this includes areas like drinking alcohol, birth control, watching harry potter, eating bacon, playing cards, listening to secular music, using electricity (thanks amish! ... and no, i'm not worried about offending them.  they shouldn't be using the internet anyway. :), etc.

2) "whatever is not from faith is sin."  if you are personally convinced God doesn't want you to do something which the Bible is silent on, don't do it.  for you it would be sin!  the reason it would be sin is not cause the thing/action itself is wrong, but because, in as far as you are convinced, it would be disobedience to God, and that is sin.  keep your convictions.  live by them.  just don't force them on others because then you'll have a much bigger problem than eating bacon and watching harry potter. 

3) "it is good not to do anything by which your brother stumbles."  that is, if the option is between using your freedom to do what you want and serving your brother, go with the later.  we are given great freedom in Christ, not so we can do what we want, but so that in surrendering it for others, we may become more like Him.  the Cross of Jesus proves without a doubt that serving others is more important than standing on your rights.  but does that mean we have to stop drinking coffee, eating bacon, watching TV and using electricity just cause it might stumble someone?

4) "do you have faith?  have it to yourself before God."  to serve others with our freedom doesn't mean that we become as strict as they are.  it does mean that we use our freedom with discretion and readiness to surrender it for others.  the principle is not "if this might stumble someone somewhere, i shouldn't do it."  love doesn't exist in "theory", only in practice.  the principle is: "if this does stumble the person i'm with right now, then in his presence i will refrain."  use your freedom in places and ways it won't stumble others (at the least just before God... it won't stumble Him if you eat bacon. :)  does this mean we stop using freedom all together?  no.  does it mean we surrender it for the good of those who are stumbled by it?  yes.

if Christians would all apply these simple Scriptural principles, there would be a lot less petty fighting and contentions among the body of Christ. 

one disclaimer should be mentioned at this point:  if a person is attempting to set up their own convictions as law for others (which really means they are trying to set themselves up as god), we should contradict and break their convictions boldly.  if they are contradicting the will of God through their man-made convictions, we should ignore them.  Jesus often practiced this when the pharisees attempted to thwart the work and will of God by their extra-biblical convictions.  Jesus' response was to boldly contradict them and continue anyway with the work His Father was doing.

well, hope that was beneficial for someone out there.  feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

washing feet and loving others

(btw, don't you just love that Jesus is washing feet in what appears to be a german bar, complete with beer maids? :)

well, i thought i would share a little excerpt of what we talked about in today's study in Romans. it really spoke to me as i was preparing and i hope to others as we studied today. we looked at the phrase in chapter 13, "owe no one anything except to love one another". the word "owe" in the original greek is most frequently used of financial debt. it implies an obligation. (i'm tempted to start a rant on how Christians often ignore this and are as apt to live in financial debt as the next shmuck, but i'll restrain myself. :) the thing is, Paul says there is one thing we are obligated, indebted to give, and that's love to one another.

Jesus also uses this word in a very unique way at one point (most times he uses it in the financial sense, too). in Jn. 13, right after He humbled Himself to do the menial task of washing the disciples' feet, wiping them with the towel wrapped around His waist, He says to them, "You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought (are obligated) to wash one another's feet." now, we get that it's a good example and all, but why exactly does Jesus choosing to humbly serve these disciples obligate them and us to do likewise?

Jesus Himself gives the answer in emphasizing His role as "Teacher and Lord". the ancient, eastern culture that Jesus lived in was an "honor culture". if a person was in a position of honor, there was certain protocol. for example, if a king were to kneel before someone else in the presence of his subjects, the subjects would also immediately kneel before that person (i'm sure we even recognize this from a number of movies.) if a rabbi, a "teacher", were to humble himself through fasting, it was expected that his disciples would do the same. if a slave were to see his master, his "lord", begin to do some menial task, he would without hesitation come along and take over that work. the subjects/disciples/slaves were never to position themselves above their master (Jesus Himself states this in Mt. 10). if their superior were to humble himself in a given way and they did not, it was tantamount to saying "i am above my master/teacher/king", which in reality is a rejection of his position as lord. therefore, Jesus says, "if I, as your Lord and Teacher, have done this, you have a direct obligation to Me to humble yourself and serve in the same way, thus honoring Me."

this is vitally important to grasp in living out the Gospel. we often think of our love and service to others as what we give to them. Jesus completely contradicts this understanding. the fact is, our love and service to others does not tell primarily what we think of them, but what we think of Christ! our attitude towards another person, as disciples and servants of Jesus, reflects foremost our evaluation of Him, not of that person. to use the the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Life Together, "among Christians there are no direct relationships. all relationship exists in and through Christ... any direct relationship is ultimately sinful." that is, as Christians, each one of our human relationships is mediated by and reflects upon our relationship with Jesus first and foremost. this is why we have a debt, an obligation to love one another, because it is a question of honoring or insulting our Lord. when we refuse to love and serve another person, we are essentially saying, "Jesus, i know you think he/she is worth dying for, worth Your life, but they aren't worth mine." in this way we are boasting against, insulting our Lord and, in some sense, denying His relationship to us as Sovereign.

the reason we do such a crappy job of loving and serving people so often is in part because we have failed to realize this truth. we attempt to love a person for his own sake, and of course fail when we realize that he is not capable of sustaining our effort to love him/her. we put that pressure on him and ultimately crush him with it. this is why Bonhoeffer said that all "direct" relationships are ultimately sinful (and as sin always is, ultimately destructive). relationship to someone who is unworthy can only be sustained and empowered if it is mediated by One who has the resources to command and inspire our love on His behalf. and since there is only One who is worthy, all relationships must exist "through Christ". to attempt to create or maintain relationship directly is to ensure our failure in this endeavor and to crush the recipient of our "love" under a burden he cannot bear.

it is this understanding that led John, who recorded the footwashing scene, to later write in his 1st epistle "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also." in other words, if a person thinks he loves God but is holding hatred, refusing to love his brother, he is lying to himself! the truth is that how we treat our brother has much more to do with Jesus than it does with our brother. in a very real sense, based on Jesus' position as Lord and His humble love, if we do not love our brother, we are not loving God. Jesus said that the 1st commandment was to love God with all your being and the second like it; to love your neighbor as yourself. as it turns out, the 2nd is so much like the 1st that we could really say they are the same commandment. loving our brother is not optional to loving God, nor even secondary to loving God. it is the same thing from a different angle. there is really only one commandment: love.

McNazis, Religion and the Gospel

well, i figured i'd write about my latest adventure in a string of very unusual spiritual attacks. i was invited to teach at a men's conference for calvary chapel of kiev this weekend. i headed up to kiev on friday and as i was leaving mcdonald's, a guy, mid-twenties, rather "aryan" looking, stares at me and asks me if i've ever read mein kampf (hitler's autobiography and ideological treatise). i was shocked by the question and didn't even know what to say. he proceeded to call me a "friggin' jew" and pushed me a few times. i'm pretty sure he was on some kind of drugs. i tried to explain to him that i'm not jewish (though i do look it and would be completely proud to be jewish). he didn't listen and began to punch and kick me. i was able to block most of his swings, though he left a few good bruises on my legs from kicking. i yelled to the manager to call the police. this is all happening in the middle of a very crowded mcdonald's.... and NO ONE even stood up to help. for all their tough-guy facade, men here are generally pretty cowardly. the police arrived in a few minutes and put him in their car to take to the station.

now, besides the obvious warfare right before the conference (which actually encouraged me because it made me even more sure that God wanted to do something important there if satan was going to such lengths to stop it), there was another very interesting aspect to this event. tomorrow we will be in Rom 12:13 and discussing the phrase "given to hospitality". the word "hospitality" here in greek is "philoxenia". it is basically the opposite of "xenophobia": a fear or hatred of strangers/foreigners. interesting timing for my first ever xenophobic attack.

but the idea of "philoxenia", friendship or love of strangers/foreigners, is much wider than race. the phrase in verse 13 literally translates to "pursue, chase after friendship with those who don't belong, who are outcasts and rejected". what it got me thinking about was how so often this is the last thing people would describe christians as. in fact, it is sadly "christians" (who often for some reason that i cannot comprehend feel that fox news is on nearly the same level of spiritual authority as the Bible) who demonstrate a dislike and even disgust of people who do not fall into their club; democrats, illegal immigrants, muslims, homosexuals and the like. sure, they would not likely take to violence, but there is a certain animosity that nevertheless some "christians" hold against those who don't belong. sadly i've heard too many rants against illegal immigrants, homosexuals, democrats, and others perceived as somehow doing damage to "traditional society" coming from the "christian" pulpit.

the reason i keep using the word "christian" in quotation marks is because people who hold this xenophobic attitude (in more than the racial sense) have really very little that is Christ-like about them. the fact is that christians who avoid or even disdain those who are other than themselves, christians who do not pursue the outcasts of society/culture have really forgotten the Gospel (and may not be more than culturally christian or just religious in the first place). in the epistle to the Ephesians in chapter 2 Paul says that we were once aliens and foreigners (xenos) to the promises of God and without hope in the world. but because God is full of "philoxenia", He pursued us and brought us into His family, made us part of His kingdom. He did not shun us in high-minded disdain, but came to earth, became one of us, and humbled Himself on the Cross that we might be brought near by His precious blood. therefore, if the Gospel means that we have received this love of God as outcasts, it only follows that we would pass this along. a "christian" who is high-minded and hateful towards those who do not fit into his understanding of the world have forgotten that they are no less "alien" by nature than the one they now disdain. the Gospel must necessarily produce in us the same kind of "philoxenia" that God has shown to us in Jesus Christ, otherwise there is reason to question if we have experienced the Gospel at all and instead are merely religious.

[disclaimer: the image at the top of this article is a not a production of the national socialist german worker's (nazi) party nor of the mcdonald's corporation, neither is it meant to imply that ronald or any of his friends is a fascist (except for possibly the hamburgler) or for that matter that adolf would have clogged his aryan arteries with bigmacs. it is merely meant to illustrate my experience on friday... so now i can't get sued. :) ]

cc svitlovodsk video

so i've been meaning to post this video on here for a while. oddly, we have better and more consistent internet connection here in ukraine than we did in the states. this is a video i put together with pictures of people and events in our church as well as interviews with people to let them share how Jesus has worked in their lives since coming to calvary chapel svitlovodsk. the interviews are subtitled in english. enjoy and pray for us!

in addition, be sure to check out our church's website and podcast.

charles darwin vs. good friday

recently i've run across a number of Christian authors and teachers who, in discussing the intersection of faith and science, seem at least open to if not supportive of the idea that God somehow used evolution to create the universe and the various species. this concept, theistic evolution, is far from new. in fact, it's been around since the Origin of Species. many of my favorite authors actually hold this view. their argument typically centers around how Genesis 1 (or 1-11 depending on who you ask) is not literal but allegorical, symbolic, poetic, etc. don't worry, i'm not about to attempt to prove how scientifically, mathematically and biologically absurd darwin's evolution theory really is in this blog post (there are plenty of good books to do that). but what recently made me, let's say, concerned is the apparent disconnect in these brilliant Christian writers' minds between evolution and the gospel.

here in ukraine the church holidays are celebrated by the old julian calendar, which means that this friday will be good friday. as i've been reflecting on this beautiful tragedy the last few days, i found myself looking at the ramifications of theistic evolution for the gospel. one of the first and classic points of the opponents of theistic evolution is that if God used evolution for creating the world and the species before the fall of man, that makes Him the author of death (since the gears of the evolutionary machine grind the weak to bits and only the "fittest" survive). but what struck me was a much more specific problem.

on good friday all Christians celebrate the death of Jesus Christ, the Godman, who hung on the Cross in our stead, for our sins. we believe that His death there was a substitutionary atonement for our sin before God. but this begs the question: what in the world does the death of Christ have to do with my sin? this is where the necessary Biblical tie comes in. Scripture says that "sin entered the world though one man, and death through sin, so that death passed to all mankind." the connection between sin and death is direct and undeniable according to the Bible. it is because of this connection that Christ's death in our place was tantamount to bearing the penalty of our sin. likewise, it is also upon this connection that the significance of the resurrection of Jesus becomes clear: His triumph over death was a triumph not merely over biological decomposition, but over the power and effect of sin. these points are orthodox, Christian doctrine and nothing new.

but what is striking then is that the same men who accept these truths could turn around and say that God used evolution to create the different species. what this implies is a total disconnect between man's sin and the presence of death in the world. this raises the question: if death has nothing to do with sin, then why did Christ have to die? if darwin was right about the appearance of life, then what is it about this friday that is good?

now, i realize that these Christian authors promulgating theistic evolution are certainly NOT claiming that the death of Christ did nothing to cleanse our sin. on the contrary, i believe they are great men of God who deeply love Jesus. like i said, many of my favorite authors fall into this group. however, i think they probably got caught up in the snowstorm of scientific pseudo-evidence for evolution while not really thinking through the theological implications that such a theory puts to the meaning of the Cross. i'm thankful as we approach good friday that, though sin did enter the world through one man and death through that sin, that,

"as sin reigned in death, even so now grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ." -Rom. 5:21

what do you think, are theistic evolution and the gospel compatible? if so, why?

john tetzel is not dead

i know, it sounds like the title of an episode of LOST, but it's not. :) john tetzel, as some will know, was an indulgence seller for the catholic church in the early 16th century, promising forgiveness of sins for money. it was said that he even claimed that the indulgence offered by pope leo x for the building of st. peter's basilica could pardon the violation of the virgin mary. martin luther, the great reformer, wrote his 95 theses largely in response to the practice of selling indulgences, and especially to the tactics of john tetzel. one of tetzel's "ad jingles" for selling indulgences is enshrined forever in scathing rebuke in the 95 theses. his line was: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

well, while we were in kiev to give birth to isaac (see pics here), i was in some of the shopping centers and realized that john tetzel was not dead, he had just moved to ukraine (and aparently switched allegiance from the roman catholic church to the ukrainian orthodox church). this is a "coffer" that stood by the entrance of the shopping center in downtown kiev for donations towards the construction of a new church in kiev, and i saw many identical ones in other shopping centers:


the translation of the inscription is: "place your brick in the foundation of the holy habitation and in her walls prayers will sound for you eternally". guess tetzel hasn't lost his knack for jingle-writing even after almost 500 yrs.! it's truly heart-rending that men would gladly sell out the truth of the Gospel of grace to finance their programs (and no, it's not limited to the catholic or orthodox churches!) luther also had a slogan of sorts which, while perhaps not as catchy, certainly rings loud even to this day with the great truth of the Gospel:

"Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria"
(by Faith Alone, by Grace Alone, by Scripture Alone, by Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone)

is Allah the God of the Bible?

a fascinating article on contextualizing the Gospel among muslims and the name of "Allah". any one who is interested in missions would probably find this fascinating (at least i did).

Who is Allah?

any thoughts?

happy reformation day!

that's right, not only is it halloween (the most ridiculous holiday of the year), but its more importantly "reformation day". on oct. 31st in 1517 ad, martin luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in wittenberg, thus marking the beginning of the protestant reformation. now there's a real holiday! here's thesis number 62 for you to chew on today:

"the true treasure of the Church
is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God."