mbjones

Getting back to [Jesus for President][1] seems prudent, for a post at least, particularly as I’ve thought quite a bit lately about justice in our time. I’m not actually going to talk about that here (perhaps tomorrow); instead, I’m going to continue to explore more from my favorite section of the book: section 3 — *when the empire got baptized*.

One interesting part of it looks at pieces of idolatry in our time, where empire is subverting Jesus in favor of its own welfare. The epitome of this, as far as I’m concerned, comes from our president’s State of the Union speech in 2003:

>There’s power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.

Compare this to its original:

>There’s power, wonder-working power, in the precious blood of the Lamb

I find it rather offensive that we can so nonchalantly replace the *precious* blood of the lamb with the American people. As Christians, there isn’t anything that can replace yet we let our leaders re-write our liturgy (pushing Jesus right out of the picture).

Here’s another example from the same president:

>The ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. … That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (Bush, 2002 Ellis Island)

Compare that to one of my favorite scriptures:

>1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men. 5 That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.

>John 1:1-5 (HCSB)

So, we have on one hand a president that says America is the hope of mankind and on another the author of John saying the Word (JESUS!) is the hope of mankind. And then the verse 5 is totally co-opted by our political system. I use this translation instead of my usual (NET) to show how its been taken word for word. It’s kind of scary to think how easily the sacred is subverted by the secular, and how no one seems to be batting an eye. And lest you think I’m railing unnecessarily against one party alone, the other does it as well: *This country is still the last best hope on earth* (Obama on Letterman).

What irks me even more though is when religious leaders of our nation willingly participate in the power of the world, disregarding the teachings of Jesus. Some examples:

>We have the ability to take [Hugo Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. ~Pat Robertson

>You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord. ~Jerry Falwell

And then the pundits who vocalise the name of Christ (without any visible fruit of the spirit):

>We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war. ~Ann Coulter

This post is titled ***Idolatry Today*** and these are just a few of the examples that one could readily fine. They highlight ever more clearly, in my eyes, the need for the church to *step up and be the kingdom of God to a dieing world*. It’s time we stopped allowing the state to co-opt the kingdom of God by subverting her songs, creeds and scriptures.

I’ll leave you with a thought from a founding father of our nation, who I tend to think had a much better view of the role of church and the role of state:

>The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. ~John Adams

And then Frederick Douglass — slave, abolitionist, statesman:

>Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. … I love the pure peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.

I’ll let you think on what that *most deceitful one* is.

[1]:http://www.jesusforpresident.org

Julian the Apostate was the Roman emperor from 361 to 363. He’s called the Apostate because he converted from Christianity to theurgy and is considered the last Pagan emperor (he revived paganism in Rome as a counter to the thriving Christianity).

He was the author of many letters. In particular interest to me, he comments on the popularity of Christianity:

>”These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.”

>”Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods.”

>Variation from here. Originally heard in the sermon *Jesus and Politics* by Tim Keller

* For the interested, agapae = unconditional love.

It’s interesting to think that agapae towards the poor, both “ours” and “theirs”, was one of the primary identified catalysts behind Christian adoption (it’s no wonder there are over 2000 Biblical passages dealing with those on the margins of society). One can only hope we continue to re-discover that catalyst–over the past few months especially I’ve found it to be at the heart of missional living.

I posted briefly yesterday that I have been reading a book called [The Coming of the Son of Man][1]. I decided that I’d go ahead and put my notes and thoughts down in text to help sort things out. So…this post will start things off with the setup of the book.

[The Coming of the Son of Man][1] approaches eschatology in its original narrative and attempts to keep it in that content. Basically, it looks at NT eschatology as a story within a story within a story, describing and pulling from a variety of historical events — babylonian captivity, Maccabean Revolt, the Hellenization of the Jewish world, the Bar Kokhba uprising, etc. From this, eschatology is read from the first century (and not backwards from ours) and it assumes that the apocalyptic language is meaningful to its time (theirs, not necessarily ours). It also seeks to recognize when and where NT eschatology borrows from the OT (and from this, bringing the prior context into their present context and reapplying it). And finally the apocalyptic language of the NT is read in such a way that a integrated and consistent narrative is built (by reading the authors and their narratives separately and then looking for the ties that bind them together).

All of this setup I appreciated. I’ve shied away from reading much eschatology (outside of *Kingdom of God* theology) because approaches I’ve heard all seem to read from our time looking back, rather than the opposite (and they seem to come up with some fairly wild ideas!). I rather like the idea though of putting the words and language in its original context and letting the text speak for itself. Also by intentionally bringing in the Old Testament prophetic sources and letting them enrich the passages can only help in understanding. These I tend to think are fantastic guiding principles regardless of what you are reading. And in the interest of brevity, I’ll stop here for now. I have a feeling the next post could be longer as it jumps into the narrative itself (in Daniel!). Until then…

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Son-Man-Testament-Eschatology/dp/1842272993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208547682&sr=8-1

I’m about 3/4 of the way through a book called [The Coming of the Son of Man][1] by a fellow by the name of Andrew Perriman (the editor of [opensourcetheology.net][2]). It’s subtitle is *New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church* and it’s essentially the authors reading of the apocalyptic language of Jesus, Paul and others in the New Testament and how they relate to us today.

What’s intriguing about it is the perspective it comes from — preterism. Preterism is the belief that eschatological events described in the Bible occurred in the first century, shortly after the time of Jesus. Partial preterism (destruction of the temple, collapse of Rome, etc describe some but not all of NT apocalyptic) has always fallen within the bounds of orthodoxy, but full preterism generally hasn’t. And having never read anything about either, this text intrigued.

When I first started it, I presumed it would fall in the “partial” category but as I’ve been reading it seems to lean heavily towards “full”. While disappointing in part, I’m curious to see how things end. It would seem to me that a full preterist view would eliminate a lot of hope in the eventual parousia of Christ and I’m curious to see what might happen in a belief minus that hope. It also seems to force a stretching in interpretation of some NT passages, which didn’t sit super well with me. As such, I’m reserving final judgement til the end. I can say though, with 3/4 of it knocked out, that it is an intriguing read and certainly thought provoking. I’ll also say that I plan on interacting with it some here over the coming days and weeks.

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Son-Man-Testament-Eschatology/dp/1842272993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208547682&sr=8-1
[2]:http://www.opensourcetheology.net/

Some time ago I defined *missional* as:

>Any community bent on making Jesus their number one priority and because of this see themselves as a whole sent on mission for Him.

Now, from that simple definition its obvious that Jesus is to be at the heart of missional living but worked out, what does this look like?

##God’s Story In History

At a fundamental level, a missional heart looks towards God’s working in history. There are several broad motifs that can be used to describe God’s work: creation, fall, redemption and restoration. Creation of course refers to the formation of this universe and everything in it ex nihlio. Ex nihlio means “from nothing” and is important because it really is solely God that is the catalyst for all. John 1 says that all things were created through Jesus and that His life is our light. This is also important because right from the beginning man was created to enter into God’s story. Unfortunately though this wasn’t the end. In spite of things being perfect originally, sin entered into the world — the fall happened. Man disobeyed God and unleashed a destructive force into the world that is tearing it to bits. Luckily this isn’t the end either. In fact, in order to restore man and creation to Himself, God became fleshed, moved into our neighborhood and died at our hands — the perfect sacrifice through which we have redemption. It seems like this is the end of the story for a lot of individuals and groups. Luckily God wants to see all of creation restored unto Himself and in the end it will be. In the meantime we are charged with taking the redemption He has granted us everywhere we go, seeking the restoration of all. We are to aid the restoration of broken places until His *parousia* (the return of Jesus).

This isn’t a pattern that just comes with Christ though — it is evident in the earliest pages of the Bible. When God called Abram (Gen. 12) and he followed, God ended His conversation with Abram letting him know that all peoples on the earth would be blessed through Him. Even before the redemption of Christ is understood, God’s heart to see His creation restored to Himself is clearly visible.

##Sodom and Gomorrah

To illustrate this more vividly, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah makes for interesting reading. We all know the story, right? These are wicked cities where no man cares for righteousness. Truth be told, evil sexual deeds are what they are most known for (and really, nothing else). Abraham pleads with God to stay judgement, dependent on righteous men being found within the city. Of course none are and the cities are destroyed (along with Lot’s wife who looked back).

Nine times out of ten when you hear people talk about Sodom today it’s in regards to homosexuality (at least in my experience). While it’s true that this was a periphery issue which lead to its destruction, sexual deviance is merely symptomatic of a much, much worse underlying problem (one we’d do good to make note of in our society). To flesh it out I’m heading to the prophets to see what they have to say about the nation of Israel in relation to Sodom.

>49 “This was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, had abundance of food, and enjoyed carefree ease, but they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and committed abominable crimes before me. So, when I saw it, I removed them. 51 Samaria has not committed half the sins you have; you have done more abominable deeds than they did. You have made your sisters appear righteous by all the abominable things you have done. 52 So now, bear your disgrace, because you have given your sisters reason to justify their behavior. Because the sins you have committed were more abominable than those of your sisters; they have become more righteous than you. So now, be ashamed and bear the disgrace of making your sisters appear righteous.

>Ezekiel 16:49-52

This tells us several interesting things about the state of Sodom prior to destruction as well as what directly leads to their destruction. Pre-destruction, Sodom was a nation incredibly blessed — they had an abundance of food and enjoyed “carefree ease” which tells me they really didn’t have a concern in the world — it seems people had what they needed. God’s blessing though terminated on themselves (ie, no restoration) and unfortunately this seemed to lead them down the path of pride which led directly to the unrighteousness that gets them destroyed. I find it interesting that the first piece of the unrighteousness puzzle is that they didn’t help the poor and needy. I think though that this is one of the first warning signs of the pride issue. As we fill ourselves with pride our focus is drawn more and more inward until there is no concern for anything else. This focus inward also then ultimately leads to the “abominable crimes” before God as we’re only concerned for our own personal desires.

There is one major point to take from these verses in regards to walking in God’s story in history and it is really quite simple: don’t let God’s blessing end with you. Everything you have shouldn’t be just flowing inward — flow it out. You can’t/won’t do this if you have a proud and haughty heart towards God so don’t let that happen. At a very base level, check yourself against pride. From these verses this looks like (a) are you doing what you can to support the poor and needy of your neighborhood? and (b) are you performing any “abominable crimes” before God?

Ezekiel isn’t the only prophet that speaks of Sodom. Isaiah in numerous places echoes the words of Ezekiel and expounds upon them. Starting in chapter 1 at verse 10 Isaiah calls these cities Sodom and Gomorrah and continues to get seriously in their face. According the Isaiah, the Lord basically says he’s tired of their sacrifices and that He doesn’t want them. He says that He can’t tolerate their festivals and sabbaths and assemblies. God says He looks the other way when they pray. All of this would be pretty incredulous for the Israelites to hear as God had instituted all and expected it of them. The fact remains though that they were doing all tainted with blood. Outward they had all the workings of redemption but inward they were vile, sinful beings. What does God call them to?

>16 Wash! Cleanse yourselves! Remove your sinful deeds from my sight. Stop sinning! 17 Learn to do what is right! Promote justice! Give the oppressed reason to celebrate! Take up the cause of the orphan! Defend the rights of the widow!

>Isaiah 1:16-17

First and foremost — repentance from all the sinning. Secondly though they are take the restoration they know with them and develop some since of a social conscience. In other words, their redemption doesn’t terminate with themselves; instead, they should turn it into restoration for others.

This though certainly isn’t the only place this theme can be found. Isaiah 58 is another great passage that speaks directly to this. It starts just as the Isaiah 1 passage calling into question their outward religious actions (this time chiefly fasting) when their inwards hearts are as black as possible.

>3 They lament, ‘Why don’t you notice when we fast? Why don’t you pay attention when we humble ourselves?’ Look, at the same time you fast, you satisfy your selfish desires, you oppress your workers.

>Isaiah 58:3

Just as before the problem is that everything is turned inward — it’s their own selfish desires that they are fulfilling. God’s blessing is ending solely with them. But what does God want?

>6 No, this is the kind of fast I want. I want you to remove the sinful chains, to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke, to set free the oppressed, and to break every burdensome yoke. 7 I want you to share your food with the hungry and to provide shelter for homeless, oppressed people. When you see someone naked, clothe him! Don’t turn your back on your own flesh and blood! 8 Then your light will shine like the sunrise; your restoration will quickly arrive; your godly behavior will go before you, and the LORD’s splendor will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call out, and the LORD will respond; you will cry out, and he will reply, ‘Here I am.’ You must remove the burdensome yoke from among you and stop pointing fingers and speaking sinfully. 10 You must actively help the hungry and feed the oppressed. Then your light will dispel the darkness, and your darkness will be transformed into noonday.

>Isaiah 58:6-10

It’s the same theme repeated: restoration to those that need it. We even get echoes of the Great Commandment part 2 here: love your neighbor as yourself because they are your own flesh and blood. They are no different than you are.

##Concluding Thoughts

To kick this discussion off I wrote that a missional heart is one joined with God’s working in history and it really is. The drive towards missional living comes from this understanding that we are a part of God’s story and that redemption doesn’t end with us — there is a clear drive towards seeing restoration around us. In the passages I used from the Old Testament this looks likes working towards getting ourselves straightened out (rooting the sin out of our lives) and then taking care of the poor and needy and sick and orphaned and widowed — essentially all of those on the margins of society. It’s important to note here though that this isn’t something we have to do (as if our own redemption is dependent on it). Rather it is something we should be driven to as it lies at the very heart of who we are now as redeemed beings. If we aren’t taking the redemption we’ve been given to those around us (seeking the restoration of all to God) we have some pretty serious questions we need to be asking ourselves.

As an aside, this developing heart I see around me is exciting. It excites me to see those in my community and like-minded communities join together to see actual change in the surrounding areas. It’s exciting to see money going straight to missional work and bringing Jesus to those that don’t know Him rather than padding ourselves with multi-million dollar buildings and technology systems that in the end don’t really matter all that much. It’s exciting to see the focus taken off of ourselves and placed where it should be: the cross of Christ which can then filter it to others. The cross is like a prism — focusing on it doesn’t render a reflection of ourselves, rather it refracts it to wherever is necessary. And I’ll end with that at the moment knowing full well that this topic of “missional” isn’t one that will be decided in just a couple of posts. Look for more coming in the future.

This past Tuesday I re-watched Pan’s Labyrinth with a special young lady who had never seen it. Besides forgetting how violent it is, one part jumped out at me: the fascist captain rationing food for the villagers. Now you wouldn’t necessarily think that something that would spring out at you, but in this case it did (particularly after having just read Jesus for President). As the villagers lined up, the captain walked by proclaiming “This is your daily bread” while holding out ration cards. “We provide your daily bread” proclaims the state juxtaposed against the Lord’s Prayer which proclaims God as the giver of our daily bread is an interesting thing to dwell on for a bit specifically because I think it tends to highlight the liturgy of the state quite well.

Now with this viewing I was immediately drawn once again to Jesus’ temptation in the desert. Growing up, this story of Jesus was always used to highlight temptation and how Jesus was like us and how God would provide in times of temptation and need but there is an underlying political thread that’s quite important as well. Jesus for President highlights this quite well, pulling heavily from Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder (and others as well). The first temptation in particular jumps out in the light of this scene:

4:2 After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished. 4:3 The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread.” 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:2-4

The basic gist is this: Jesus is hungry; the devil knows this and highlights that its within His power to take care of the hunger issue but Jesus points out the higher good — it’s the Word of the Lord that we live by, not just bread. Now its important to keep in mind (particularly when looking at the underlying political thread) that in the temptations, Jesus is entering into the Israelites story. I never caught this growing up, and if you didn’t, take a look back in Exodus:

6:16 “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Each person is to gather from it what he can eat, an omer per person according to the number of your people; each one will pick it up for whoever lives in his tent.’” 16:17 The Israelites did so, and they gathered – some more, some less. 16:18 When they measured with an omer, the one who gathered much had nothing left over, and the one who gathered little lacked nothing; each one had gathered what he could eat.

16:19 Moses said to them, “No one is to keep any of it until morning.” 16:20 But they did not listen to Moses; some kept part of it until morning, and it was full of worms and began to stink, and Moses was angry with them. 16:21 So they gathered it each morning, each person according to what he could eat, and when the sun got hot, it would melt. 16:22 And on the sixth day they gathered twice as much food, two omers per person; and all the leaders of the community came and told Moses. 16:23 He said to them, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is a time of cessation from work, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Whatever you want to bake, bake today; whatever you want to boil, boil today; whatever is left put aside for yourselves to be kept until morning.’”

16:24 So they put it aside until the morning, just as Moses had commanded, and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. 16:25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the area. 16:26 Six days you will gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”

16:27 On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather it, but they found nothing. 16:28 So the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to obey my commandments and my instructions? 16:29 See, because the Lord has given you the Sabbath, that is why he is giving you food for two days on the sixth day. Each of you stay where you are; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

16:31 The house of Israel called its name “manna.” It was like coriander seed and was white, and it tasted like wafers with honey.

16:32 Moses said, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Fill an omer with it to be kept for generations to come, so that they may see the food I fed you in the desert when I brought you out from the land of Egypt.’”

Exodus 16:16-32

To boil the above down, God delivered the Israelites and as part of His promise to them, He provided them with the sustenance they needed on a daily basis. The mana he provided wouldn’t last any longer than a day (except on the 6th day) and forced the Israelites to rely on God for everything. And this went on 40 years. Now, back to the temptation of Jesus: this part of the Israelite story is being recalled. Jesus is faced with a choice: enter into it by relying on God for sustenance alone or, as the devil points out, exploit the land for His sustenance and security. Juxtaposed against the state, Jesus could have realistically done what Caesar was doing: winning the masses by “bread and circus” but He throw off any temptations of this nature choosing God instead.

Again, as I begin with, this is good stuff to just sit and spend some time thinking and digesting. Ultimately it brings me into deeper consideration of the kingdom of God (and that’s always a good thing). Some questions worth consideration:

• Who am I relying on for my daily bread? God? The state? Some other Idol?
• If not God (and instead some other), how can repent of this?

Tonight I had the opportunity to talk about Communion at church. With the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection, it seemed fitting to do a communion service. As to what I said, I figured I’d write the general gist for those of you who might be curious or who missed out on the fun this evening. The talk started with a discussion about what communion is. Depending on your background, you might have heard it labeled “the Lord’s Supper” or the Eucharist and as a practice it stems from Jesus’ last supper with His disciples before His crucifixion. Confirmed by the Gospels, this supper was the passover meal which proves to be interesting because Jesus takes specific elements from the Jewish feast and applies them directly to Himself. In truth, there is a lot more of the passover meal that points to Jesus then just this one part (but we are going to limit our discussion for the time being). The first passage from the Bible we are going to look at is Matthew 26:26-30:

26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” 26:27 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, 26:28 for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 26:29 I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” 26:30 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Essentially, as you can see from the aforementioned passage, communion involves the giving of thanks to God for bread and wine, recognizing what those elements mean in the context of Christ and then sharing them together around the dinner table. We could pull more from these verses but I really want to take a look at both the why we do it and the how we do it which is fleshed out elsewhere in the New Testament. As such, we’ll now turn to 1 Corinthians starting in chapter 10 and continuing into 11. In these chapters, Paul is addressing specific concerns regarding the sharing of the bread and cup among the Corinthian church. To start things off here we are going to look at why we do it. In chapter 10, vs 16 -17:

10:16 Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread.

Two primary reasons for communion are found here: it is a direct sharing in the body and the blood of Christ and in this sharing we are united with Him as one. As for the first, it’s an opportunity to set aside a moment and remember Christ’s life, what He did and how and why He died. Partaking the elements of who He was (His body and blood) directly links us up with Him and allows us in some fashion to share in His life, death and resurrection as we reflect on it. Whereas the first reason was more of an individual reason, the second is a corporate one. To flesh it out, the model prayer for giving thanks for the bread sums things up better than I could:

As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and gathered together and became one loaf, so may Your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom. (from the Didache)

I love this prayer because it so succinctly paints the picture: a loaf of bread is formed by the coming together of scattered grains from all over the countryside; likewise the church is formed by those of us partaking of the body of Christ and coming together to form a united “loaf” in the coming kingdom.

There is a third “why” to communion as well: it is an opportunity to hope for his return. In the passage from Matthew discussed earlier, Jesus says that He will not share this cup with us directly again until He returns (v29). And so, as we partake and remember and enter into what He has done, and are united, we also long for that time where once again Jesus sits and sups with His bride.

The final bit I talked about this evening is the “how” we do it. As far as “how” is concerned I’m talking about the state of our hearts more than anything else. And I’m not just talking about our individual hearts, but our heart as a community as well. To the individual response we turn first. When considering it, we need to keep in mind a couple of things the first being that we can’t share at the table of both Christ and demons. Sharing in the body of Christ is publicly picking who we choose to serve. It’s confessing “Jesus is Lord!” above all others. 1 Cor 10:21-22 says:

10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot take part in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 10:22 Or are we trying to provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we really stronger than he is?

Paul is referring here to the partaking of sacrificial meat of false gods. In our time, because we don’t do the sacrifices, it’s more of a recognition of Jesus alone. Not Muhammad, Buddha, Shiva or any other name a person might proclaim. This also singles out any idols that might be vie-ing for our hearts attention (such as individualism, consumerism, materialism, political freedom, etc). It must be Jesus only. And I harp on the “Jesus alone” because it’s quite important. Even acknowledging other idols or gods is a direct provocation of God’s jealousy. If you look at the scope of Israeli history, provoking God’s jealousy isn’t something to be done lightly or without consequence. The language of the prophets is harsh in dealing with Israel in the eyes of a Jealous God (exile, enslavement, genocide all come to mind when thinking back to the stories in the prophets).

There is another important bit to keep in mind as far as our individual hearts are concerned, and that is what they actually look like. Coming to the table of Christ with a heart darkened by sin, shame and any other sort of evil is strongly discouraged by Paul for a pretty straightforward reason: we eat and drink judgement upon ourself by showing ourselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ. That sounds harsh, I realize but look at 1 Corinthians 10:27-32:

11:27 For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 11:28 A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. 11:29 For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself. 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead. 11:31 But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged. 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world.

As I sat and meditated on this, the only conclusion I could come to is that a broken heart is the state required. This should be the result of careful examination. We all have sin, shame and evil inside that we need to be giving completely over to him, letting His blood wash us clean. This is what purifies us, making us righteous and worthy to approach the table of Christ. At this time of communion especially, if we are unwilling to recognize and do this and give it all over to God, Paul says in a fairly commanding voice “It’s on your hands!” Rather than being a worshipper at Jesus’ feet, we are like the soldier throwing the spear into His side on the cross.

That pretty well covers the state of our individual hearts. Next we need to look at our corporate heart (as the body of Christ). We need to keep in mind that Communion is something that we do together. It’s not something that I just do on my own because I can, but it’s an intentional coming together of the body in remembrance of Christ. As I’ve already shown, one of the reasons we even do communion is for the unification of the body. With this in mind, it’s important to remember that communion isn’t something that we can do with division in our midst. Paul addresses this specifically in chapter 11:

11:17 Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 11:18 For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 11:19 For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident. 11:20 Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. 11:21 For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk. 11:22 Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this!

This was a big issue to the Corinthians. Within that body there existed the problem of class warfare. The well-to-do were completely gorging themselves on the meal while the less fortunate in their midst where left with the scraps. The best metaphor I can think of at the moment is that of a potluck, but a potluck where you only get to eat according to what you bring. If all you can afford is a small side, that’s all you’re going to be able to take part of. If you can’t afford to bring anything, well, then you’re pretty much out of luck. Paul makes it pretty clear that any division like this isn’t of Christ at all. We need to be united and share in this together. I realize the example given here concerns classes (and isn’t something that necessarily affects our body) but it covers any sort of division, whether it be hardness in my heart towards a group of people, an unwillingness of some of us to accept leadership, the formation of cliches that lock people out or deciding to eat together but then going our own ways (like at solemn assembly). I’m not saying that any of this exists but we do need to be mindful of division however it might exist as we come as one to the table of Christ.

And with that we have a brief glimpse into what communion is, why we do it, and what our hearts need to look like as we approach the table of Christ.

 ”…it is precisely in the midst of a Holy Saturday experience that the decision to follow Christ becomes truly authentic.  A faith that can only exist in the light of victory and certainty is one which really affirms the self while pretending to affirm Christ, for it only follows Jesus in the belief that Jesus has conquered death.  Yet a faith that can look at the horror of the cross and still say ‘yes’ is one that says ‘no’ to the self in saying ‘yes’ to Christ.  If one loses one’s life only because one believes that this is the way to find it, then one gives up nothing; to truly  lose one’s life, one must lay down that life without regard to whether or not one finds it.  Only a genuine faith can embrace doubt, for such a faith does not act because of a self interested resaon (such as fear of hell or desire for heaven) but acts simply because it must.  A real follower of Jesus would commit to Him before the crucifixion, between the crucifixion and the resurrection, and after the resurrection.”

How (Not) to Speak of God, pg 34 

Amy from Zondervan commented on my first posting about Jesus for President and clued me in to a “blog tour” going on by the authors of the book. It’s an opportunity for them to promote the book (and tours accompanying it) and an opportunity for people like me to perhaps interact with the authors. Rather than rehash what I’ve already written, I’ll let this post be a placeholder for those links (as well as some promotional pieces from them).My ongoing discussions:

• Post 1: Jesus for President, Initial Thoughts
• Post 2: Jesus for President, Imperial Language vs Gospel Language
• Post 3: Jesus for President, Temptation of Jesus (part 1)
• Post 4: Jesus for President, Idolatry Today

Promotional material:You can download a sample here! (it’s well worth taking a look at the style I mention in the first post)Tour Dates:

• JUNE 23 - GRAND RAPIDS
• JUNE 24 - INDIANAPOLIS
• JUNE 25 - CINCINNATI
• JUNE 26 - PITTSBURGH
• JUNE 27 - WASHINGTON DC
• JUNE 28 - NEW YORK CITY
• JUNE 29 - HARTFORD
• JUNE 30 - TORONTO, CANADA
• JULY 4 - CORNERSTONE FESTIVAL
• JULY 6 - OMAHA
• JULY 7 - DENVER
• JULY 11 - SAN FRANCISCO
• JULY 12 - FRESNO
• JULY 13 - LOS ANGELES
• JULY 15 - ALBUQUERQUE
• JULY 16 - LUBBOCK
• JULY 17 - DALLAS
• JULY 19 - ATLANTA
• JULY 20 - ORLANDO
• JULY 22 - RALEIGH/DURHAM
• JULY 23 - RICHMOND
• JULY 24 - PHILADELPHIA

I’ll keep updating this posting as I post more (and perhaps, just maybe, the authors will stop by and leave some thoughts…)

To write a little more about Jesus for President, I thought I’d go over one of the points I found quite interesting: the comparison of Gospel terminology with imperial terminology. Most of this I’d read before, but it was nice having it in the easy chart format.
Basilea:

• Imperial: the kingdom (empire) of Caesar
• Gospel: the kingdom of God (what Jesus went around proclaiming). Instead of Caesar at the head, YHWH is at the head.

Gospel:

• Imperial: an important pronouncement (generally something to the effect of an heir being born or a grand battle won)
• Gospel: the good news of Jesus (the Kingdom of God is at hand!)

Son of God:

• Imperial: The popular title of Caesar (and other kings and emperors)
• Gospel: Title given to Jesus (also, the truth in His case…)

Ekklesia:

• Imperial: A town meeting or public assembly (citizenship was bestowed, political concerns discussed, elders appointed, Caesar was worshiped)
• Gospel: What the early church was called

Parousia:

• Imperial: The return of Caesar to visit a town
• Gospel: The second coming of Christ

Savior:

• Imperial: Specific title of Caesar Augustus who “healed the chaos of Rome and brought it into a new golden age”
• Gospel: Another specific title of Jesus

All of the above paraphrased from section two of Jesus for President
There are other terms co-opted by the NT from the political sphere of life as well (these were just my favorites and ones I figured most people would recognize from the Gospel). It’s quite interesting to consider all of this and tends to open up some of the meaning of the NT. Co-opting things in this way isn’t just a private individual thing — it is a direct challenge to the status quo. Especially when considering the large groups Jesus was reaching — they would be able to see the challenge as the Imperial way was a part of life. Our vocab has changed significantly so it kind of falls on deaf ears nowadays, which is disappointing and leads to the privatized (and neutered!) religion that much of American (and western) Christianity seems to be.Just some more food for thought. Hopefully it also provides some context for the recently posted quotes (inasmuch why the early church fathers thought and spoke and wrote the way they did).