Skip to content

Author Archives for me

The Eternal Search for The Ideal Banjo

A little over a year ago, my wife and I were sitting in a restaurant in Seattle with some friends when I announced, “I think I’d like to buy a banjo.” My wife, not knowing what she was saying, said, “Go for it.”

So began my search for the perfect banjo, by no means a unique quest among banjoists. There are many who play the banjo, then there are those for whom the banjo and banjo lore has become a passion (some would even say obsession). It starts out with finding certain details about the banjo fascinating, and pretty soon you’ve got a living room filled with banjos and banjo parts. As Scott Avett of The Avett Brothers said, “You can never have enough banjos.” What I have come to realize is that this drive to collect banjos is more than just a compulsion to acquire a large number of instruments, it is a philosophical quest: It is the Eternal Search for The Ideal Banjo.

It’s all Plato’s fault

As he sat playing the banjo in a cave, the Greek philosopher Plato proposed that the things we see or touch are merely shadows of a perfect expression of reality. In this perfect reality, there exists the Ideal Banjo—a perfect Banjo Form, of which all physical banjos are mere shadows, imperfect representations at best.

My own quest began innocently enough, simply looking for a good first banjo—one that was affordable but also well-made and with a decent sound. I expected that this banjo is one I would own for a number of years. After all, most of my guitars had been around for some time, 25 years or more. So, I was somewhat taken aback by an article I read about buying a first banjo, which stated that regardless of what you buy, once you begin learning to play you will want another banjo soon. For the life of me, I couldn’t see why this would be true.

I traded my Strat (which had sat in it’s case for about 10 years) for a Deering Goodtime and began taking lessons.  Sure enough, it wasn’t long before I started looking through Craigslist and hitting yard sales looking for used deals. From there I moved to the hard stuff: I began searching eBay. In the past year, I have acquired a total of 8 more banjos, but not necessarily to keep; I have also sold 3 that I have rehabilitated, at a fairly decent profit, and have 2 “project” banjos in pieces. Again, it’s not about acquisition, it’s about the quest.

It’s the question that drives us…

What is the banjo?

There is something about the banjo which is mysteriously compelling. I have altered all but one of my banjos apart and have come to understand their various design features, but I do not understand why I and countless others around the world have become so bewitched by these particular instruments.

Perhaps it is the fact that they are accessible;  you can’t dismantle a guitar or a violin, and if you could, you probably couldn’t get it back together. Banjos, however, invite you in—there is something about the nuts and hooks (not to mention the years of dirt and corrosion) that call out, “Deconstruct me!”

For me, the fascination is mostly the open-back “pot”—the rim, the hardware, the head…  I have nothing against necks and tuners, but to me, there is very little more beautiful than a well put-together banjo pot.

Blind Willie Johnson sang in Soul of a Man, “Won’t somebody tell me, answer if you can / Won’t somebody tell me, what is the soul of a man?” The same question goes for a banjo; you can take them apart, leave them together, and even play them, but the soul of a banjo is a mystery. That, I think, is what drives the quest.

Yes, I actually play them all.

I actually play all my banjos (at least the ones that are assembled), and like each of them in their own way.  If I had to choose only one, it would be my Vega Little Wonder (also made by Deering), a gift from my wife.  It is hand-made from violin-grade maple with great tone and for me, a perfect neck shape. I of course modified it some, putting on a Renaissance head, an old style “no-knot” tailpiece, and a curved “Moon” bridge. Somewhat mysteriously to me, it tends to sound different on different days.

I am, to a great extent, perfectly satisfied playing this banjo. I can play it for hours, and often do. But then, I’ll pick up a different banjo, and enjoy that just as much. And sometimes, I just find myself staring at them.

It’s not the journey, it’s the destination

I realize that I will never find the Ideal Banjo, and as far as banjos go, I think my Vega is as good as any I’ve played (although I did play a Bart Reiter Round Peak that was awfully nice…). However, if Plato was right and there is an Ideal Banjo out there, I think it is possibly a composite of every good “shadow” banjo. So, my theory is, the way to banjo nirvana is to simply experience as many banjos in my lifetime as possible.

Written on 14 May 2012 by me under Random Thoughts with 4 Comments

Law and the Rich Young Ruler – New Covenant Law #5

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.  (Matthew 19:16-22 ESV)

The story we know as “The Rich Young Ruler” presents an interesting encounter between Jesus and a young man who by all accounts was both successful and devout. This incident obviously stood out among the hundreds of encounters Jesus had, as all three of the synoptic Gospels record the story.

It’s the question that drives us…

The question presented was, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (The Matthew version reads “What good deed must I do…?”)  This is an interesting question, as the discussion that follows shows that according to the popular Pharisee theology, he was already doing it.  As Jesus presents a few examples from the 10 Commandments, the man’s response implies that he felt he had kept the entire law, but the question he asked Jesus reveals that he seems sincerely concerned that simply following the Law wasn’t enough. This could be because either he had realized himself that he still felt incomplete, or that he had been listening to Jesus’ teachings and recognized that what Jesus’ teaching on righteousness went far beyond the requirements of the law. We don’t know; we just know that he was wondering what more he could do to obtain eternal life.

The answer, my friend …

No one I know has ever suggested that in telling the man to give away his riches, Jesus was telling him he could earn his salvation, although I know there are some Judaizers out there who would read it that way (I’ve heard them on a local heretical radio station) . Jesus understood that money, “the root of all evil,” was standing in the way of this man’s relationship with God. To “enter life,” the man needed to take his focus off of his possessions, which were standing in the way, blocking the narrow gate, as it were. As Jesus said elsewhere, “No man can serve two masters” (Matt 6:24).”

It is interesting that in quoting Commandments, Jesus did not mention “Have no other god before me,” which was the one Commandment that the man was blowing big time. He, in fact, had two other gods: money, and the Law itself.  The Law did not require him to give away his wealth, so Jesus was not pointing him toward the law in order to find life. Giving everything to the poor would not have been an act of obedience to the Law, but would have arising solely from a personal encounter with Jesus; that is, relationship. As we’ve already seen, a point Jesus is making is that keeping the Law, as impossible as that is, does not result in Kingdom-qualifying righteousness. True righteousness exists in a realm outside of the framework of Law, beyond the realm of human possibility. Which brings us to the rest of the story:

    And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”  (Matthew 19:23-26 ESV)

Note that Jesus remarks that “only with difficulty” will a rich man be able to avoid the distraction of riches and enter the Kingdom; he said nothing about it being impossible. The disciples responded as we all do when mistaking that the conversation was about rules (or falling into the trap of thinking that great riches is actually a blessing).

When reducing the Christian life to a set of rules and principles, setting aside our own preferred idols is an impossibility. We cannot keep all of the rules, especially the one that says “have no other gods before me.” If we are successful in giving up our #1 idol, whatever that is, we immediately fall prey to pride, if nothing else. As Al Pacino (as the Devil) says in the final scene of The Devil’s Advocate, “Vanity, definitely my favorite sin.”

However, salvation is not based on our work, but on God’s work. Thank God.

 

Written on 02 March 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 1 Comment

The Heart of God is not in keeping the Law – New Covenant Law #4

Wheatfield Soul

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:1-8 (ESV)

One of the main themes of the Gospel of Matthew is righteousness.  Matthew presumably was writing to a Jewish audience, and while he was focused on presenting Jesus as the Messiah as well as on his divinity, the emphasis on the call to what could be called a “meta-righteousness”—that is, a higher righteousness than that which was the focus of the Pharisees—is clear. Israel, who was as God’s Chosen People called to be righteous, failed in that endeavor and often was overtly rebellious. So, while my purpose is to look specifically at the Law, it seems this slight diversion is warranted.

Mercy, not sacrifice

In the above passage, Jesus directly quotes Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy [or steadfast love] and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” And this is not the first time Jesus has quoted this verse. Earlier, in Matthew 9:10-13, we see this exchange:

 And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (ESV, emphasis mine)

It would seem that Jesus is addressing the same group of Pharisees, as in Chapter 12 he tells them that if they had followed his earlier advice and learned what the Hosea passage was talking about, they would not have condemned the guiltless.

There are a couple of interesting things here that are often overlooked (most teachers seem to focus on Jesus being “Lord of the Sabbath”).  First, when you look at the context and the combined verses, it seems that Jesus is using the terms “guiltless,” “sick,” and “sinners” to refer to the same people.

Next, in the Matthew 12 passage, Jesus uses 2 Old Testament analogies of  Sabbath-breaking to support his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. He did not argue that the Law did not apply, but argues that some Law-breaking is simply acceptable, and that some law-breakers remain guiltless.

Finally, note that Jesus is not using the argument that “that was then, this is now,” implying a difference between Old and New Covenant approaches to the Law. Rather, he goes right to examples of the Jewish Priesthood, King David and the OT prophet Hosea to demonstrate that God has not changed. Reading through the Hosea context, we read of God’s judgment on the rebellious Israelites, not because of a failure to keep the fine points of the Law but for being a wicked people, failing to show mercy to other nations or even to each other. Even in the Old Testament, God was a God of mercy, preferring mercy to sacrifice and law-keeping.

Mercy, Mercy Me

It can be argued that Jesus is also equating righteousness with showing mercy.  Throughout Jesus’ teaching we can see references to Israel’s failure not in not keeping the Law, but in the failure to show mercy to sinners and to the Gentile nations. As mentioned before, Israel’s calling was to be a blessing to the nations, not to be a judge of nations. Jesus takes the baton from Israel, so to speak, completing the race by showing mercy and by fulfilling the Law.

The last post in the series dealt with the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Here, now, we see that continued with the call to learn mercy or “steadfast love.”

We see this story continued as Jesus walks into the synagogue, still on the Sabbath, and demonstrates mercy by healing a man with a withered hand, which again breaks the technical Law of Sabbath-keeping.  When he leaves the synagogue, many follow him, and he continues to heal those who are sick, but in private, not to make any sort of point. Again, mercy rules.

Matthew makes the connection to Isaiah 42, quoting

“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
 He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
 a bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
and in his name the Gentiles will hope.” (Matt 12:18-21 ESV)

God’s heart has never been in keeping the Law, though the Law is not without its purpose or value; rather, the God who does not change has always been a God who desires mercy, not sacrifice.  And, we see that Jesus appears to be making the distinction between the pseudo-righteousness of the Pharisees and the true righteousness of those who show—and who need—mercy.

 

 

Written on 17 February 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 2 Comments

The Golden Rule Is the Law? or, “Which way to the narrow gate?”

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. ~Matt. 7:12

In my last post, I discussed Jesus’ “mount” teaching on the Law and righteousness, and ended with the question, if perfection is unattainable by keeping rules, then how are we to attain perfection?  Matthew 7 contains an extension of Jesus’ teaching on righteousness and the Law, and he says a number of very interesting, if not confounding, things:

  1. We will not be judged according to our actions, but on whether we judge others. This continues the concept introduced in the Lord’s Prayer that we will be forgiven “as we forgive others.”
  2. The “log in the eye” comment implies that we all have these gross imperfections which render us unable to correctly view others.
  3. Don’t throw your pearls before swine. I’m actually unsure of how this fits in the overall topic.
  4. “Seek and you shall find…”  The Father will give good things (Luke says the Holy Spirit) to those who ask.

It is at this point Jesus says, “So, whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them…”

Why “so?”

It seems that Jesus is trying to paint a larger picture for the Israelites than their focus on keeping the fine points of the Law. As we know from other passages, the Jews of that day saw keeping the Law as the highest good, even if that meant ignoring lepers and dying Samaritans, and pronouncing judgment (and even stoning) those who broke the rules du jour (not that different than today, come to think of it).

The picture Jesus paints is this:

  1. To borrow from Paul, “there is none righteous, no not one.”
  2. We are all blinded by our own sins, and if we dare to pronounce judgment on others, we also judge ourselves.
  3. If we want to find the “good things”—things like love, joy, peace and presumably, even righteousness—we don’t have to put others down, we just need to see the Father.
  4. If we treat others like we would like to be treated, all of the “thou shalt nots” are moot.

Love, then, seems to be the fulfillment of the Law, as opposed to keeping the Law, which when attempted by sinful people seems to only breed more sin (another point for Paul).

The rest of the chapter then seems to make sense, and the famous verses 13-14 take on a slightly different connotation in context:

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

What is the “narrow” way? It is not the way of an attempted works-righteousness by keeping the rules at the expense of others, as the “holiness” traditions would have us believe. As unbelievers are quick to point out, there is no love evident in self-righteous attitudes and behaviors. It’s easy to see ourselves as “better than thou” and to pronounce judgment on the “sinners.” What is hard is to ask for mercy, then give it to others.

Jesus then continues to warn of false righteousness: Beware of false prophets, who claim to be righteous but are actually sinners. Not everyone who claims to be righteous will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And finally, the wise build on the rock of the words of Jesus, and the foolish build on the sand of their own attempts at righteousness.

Matthew follows this with several chapters detailing miracles that Jesus performed. Then, at the close of Chapter 11 (our modern designations, of course), Jesus comments on the unrepentance of those cities who witnessed his miracles, then says

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

When looked at as a whole, Jesus’ teaching on the Law is not all that confusing. The narrow way is the way of rest. It may be difficult, but not in the way that is typically preached. The yoke of Jesus is easy. However, giving up our attempts at self-righteousness is difficult.  Grace, it seems—living by the golden rule—is a very narrow gate indeed.

 

 

Written on 15 February 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 4 Comments

Did Jesus “Raise the Bar” in the Sermon on the Mount? – Law 2

In my last post, I began talking about Jesus’ teachings on the Law (the Old Testament Law of Moses, not necessarily Roman or other statutes).  As I stated there, it appears from the context and his statements that he is speaking primarily to the “teachers of the Law,” who were seemingly obsessed with who was or wasn’t doing what. But Jesus is also talking to those “poor in spirit” that he mentioned at the beginning of Matthew 5, those who were burdened under the religious teaching of the day.

Obviously, Jesus drew some attention from both sides, with both leaders and common-folk seeing Jesus as one of many revolutionaries that came and went. Jesus is quick to clarify that he is not anti-law; in fact, he supports the entirety of the Law, and that he doesn’t want one iota taken from the Law until it is “accomplished.”

Furthermore, he makes it clear that “ordinary” righteousness is not enough, and neither is that of the scribes and Pharisees. Connecting the dots between Jesus’ statements, he is saying that to be “poor in spirit” (theirs is the Kingdom) is to be more righteous than those who claim to keep the law.

Matthew 5:21-48

Now he starts giving examples, the “You have heard it said … but I say …” series of statements found in Chapter 5 verses 21-48 (quote from the ESV):

Anger

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Lust

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Divorce

31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Retaliation

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Love Your Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This, of course, presents an interesting twist on the teaching of the Law. Up until this point, presumably, the thinking was that literal keeping of the Law was what mattered. After all, you can only regulate behavior, not intent or emotion. Unless, of course, you’re God who can see into the hearts of men.

Let’s take anger as an example. There are laws about killing and intentionally causing bodily injury to one another, but no one would even conceive of a law against hate. Sure there are “hate crime” laws, but even so, these laws apply a presumed intent after the fact of an actual injury. If you hate but do nothing about it, there’s really nothing anyone can do, and you’ve broken no laws.

Obviously, when Jesus taught this, he didn’t realize the stresses of driving in traffic, or he would have made some allowance for momentary urges to kill. Is anyone out there not guilty of at least wanting to inflict some sort of pain on someone else?  And what’s more, now we’re supposed to love them, not just avoid hating them.

Jesus seems to be making a couple of things clear. First, even if you could do a cursory job of keeping the written Law, these internal laws are beyond the realm of possibility. Find someone who claims to be free from all evil intent, and I’ll show you a liar or a sociopath. Second, righteousness is not a matter of the written Law; we’ve moved beyond the reach of Law into an area that no one has yet considered.

Chances are, everyone in the crowd is thinking the same thing we are: We’re toast. If God—who can see into our hearts—expects us to really be perfect (as He is perfect), we’re all dead men walking. (And yes, this is precisely the point Paul will make a few years later.)

Unless…

What if there was a means to righteousness that was beyond keeping the law? If the sin is beyond reach of the Law, then it logically follows that the righteousness is also beyond the Law.

New Laws, anyone?

It has been suggested that Jesus brought a new, much more stringent law than that which came through Moses, and there is some support for this thought; certainly he is talking about a higher standard. However, thinking of this standard in the same vein as the Law of Moses doesn’t mesh with the discussion of the New Covenant Law in Jeremiah 31, the goal of which is not to create a higher standard for sin:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”  (ESV)

So trying once again to connect the dots, we have:

  1. The Law of Moses, which is to remain in force until such time as it is fully “accomplished.”
  2. A new standard for righteousness that is even more unattainable, except to be “poor in spirit.”
  3. A new covenant law, written on our hearts, by which we will know God (as opposed to knowing rules) and which brings forgiveness where God will no longer remember our sin.

Are not hating, not lusting, and loving our enemies the heart of God?  Of course. Jesus makes it quite clear, that the goal is for us to be “perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” And if unattainable by keeping rules, then how?

That, of course, is where Jesus is taking this discussion.

About this study

While I have a certain understanding of what is called “Law and Gospel” in Lutheran circles, I have no agenda here but to work my way through some key passages discussing the Law and how we are to see it from a New Covenant perspective. This is really my own personal Bible Study, worked out as I write.

Feel free to jump in with comments and questions, as long as they are in the spirit of Bible study.

 

Written on 31 January 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 3 Comments

New Covenant Law – 1

This is hopefully the first in a series of posts talking about a New Covenant perspective of the Law; that is to say, what the New Testament and Paul in particular say about the Law. When I talk about the Law, I’m talking about the Law of Moses, that which the Jewish people were expected to keep up until the time of Christ.  I’m not talking about speed laws, anti-trust regulations or taxation. These two concepts get confused by many people, but they really shouldn’t.  There are rules put in place by men, with penalties established by men. Then there are rules given by God and… well, you get the idea. To keep things clearer, I will try to always capitalize when talking about the Law of Moses.

Matthew 5

Now, while I was specifically planning on looking at Paul’s view of the Law, I really should start with Jesus, since that’s what I always tell other people to do.  The first—and perhaps the most crucial—teaching of Jesus on the Law is found in what we know as the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew Chapter 5, starting with verse 17:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Wow… and this is just the beginning. But let’s take a look at what Jesus is saying.

The SOTM (Sermon On The Mount)  begins with the Beatitudes (aka the “blesseds”), then the “salt and light” teaching. So far, Jesus seems to be addressing two groups of people: First, there are those, the poor and the persecuted, who need the Kingdom of God. Then, Jesus turns to Israel and Jerusalem in particular (the city set on a hill), who have failed to be the conduit for the blessings of God to the rest of the world. This was Israel’s assignment as the Chosen People—to be the means through which God would bless the whole world. But, rather than be that, the Jewish leadership has tried to keep the blessings to themselves, missing the point about why they were chosen. And, it seems from the comments throughout the Gospels that the Jewish establishment is trying to keep the blessings for those who keep the Law.

So, Jesus now seems to be addressing those who may be seeing Jesus as a counter-establishment revolutionary, who dares to ignore the Law (an accusation made a few times throughout the Gospels). He makes it clear that he is no such radical. He has not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it—to bring it to completion, to see it all “accomplished.” To do away with the Law undermines what Jesus has come to do. He has not come to fulfill any less than the absolute entirety of the Law, every iota, dot and tittle. And get this, the Pharisees aren’t doing it good enough.

But then he lays it out: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Is this really a mandate to keep the whole Old Testament Law (and just wait for what’s coming next)? There are, in fact, those claiming to be Christians who teach just that. Is Paul in disagreement with Jesus when he said it was impossible to be saved through the Law (Gal 2:16)? Was Peter merely dreaming when he had the vision telling him he could eat pork? Or, is Jesus trying to make a different point here?

We need to keep in mind exactly what we are talking about. If, in fact, Jesus means that righteousness depends upon keeping every iota of the law, then no Christian is doing it, no matter how legalistic they may be, and I mean no one. For one thing, Paul assures us that law makes sin increase, by design, so the Law is in fact self-defeating. It’s got failure built right into it.  Jesus’ words seem to be dooming us to failure, and the next section (the “You have heard it said, but…” teachings) makes it more clear. So what is Jesus actually saying in these verses?

Stay tuned, and we’ll look into this further next time.

 

 

Written on 30 January 2012 by me under Law & Gospel with 2 Comments

It’s Football, People!

Okay, already I’m sidetracked. But, I just can’t help myself.

About two thousand years ago, Jesus told a story: Two guys walk into a synagogue. One stands up and makes a big deal about praying in public. The other guy doesn’t. (Luke 18:10-14)  It’s one of those parables that doesn’t get talked about all that often, and I’ll let you hypothesize as to why.

For weeks now, I’ve been hearing about this Tebow guy. I Googled him, and found out he is a football player. That’s all I know.  Apparently he makes a big deal about praying in public, which makes some Christians happy, thinking this is what it means to be a “real” witness.  It turns a whole lot of other people off, and whatever he does on the field to demonstrate his Christianity is lampooned all over the internet.

I’ve never seen him play, and didn’t know what he looked like until a few minutes ago, when I pulled up an article online that talked about a recent survey where 43% of the responders believe his team wins due to divine intervention.

Seriously?

World hunger, strife, genocide, human trafficking, natural disasters and Obama. Do you really think that God cares about football?  Really?  (Personally, I think he’s too busy trying to figure out who should win the Grammys.)

It’s Football, People!

I haven’t taken the time to read about this survey, but if this is even close, it’s embarrassing.  I’m beginning to understand why there are so many atheists.  Are American Christians really clueless enough to think that the Kingdom of Heaven revolves around their favorite sports team? And, do they think that being religious in public is a good Christian witness? Remember Matthew 6:1-4:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Bottom Line

I’m not passing any judgment on this football player; I am not calling him a Pharisee, or anything else. He may be a humble, sincere guy who’s just been snookered by American Phariseeism. There are a lot of them around.

My concern is about those who somehow think Tebow is somebody to be worshiped. It’s not fair to him, for one thing.

But just think about it—for years pastors have been preaching against pro football, as it was the Sunday church service’s biggest competition, possibly becoming more popular than church.  Over the years this has changed; many pastors have succumbed to the culture, and now we hear about football every Sunday morning from the pulpit.

However, I really doubt that God has become such a fan that he’s now picking the winners.

Written on 12 January 2012 by me under Politics/Current Events with 4 Comments

Uses of the Law

Although I spent the first 20+ years of my life as a Lutheran and have continued to hold true to many Lutheran ideals (including the benefits of folk music, beer, and the love of a good woman), I’ve only recently become aware of the dispute about the valid uses of the Law (that would be the old Jewish Law of Moses, including all 10 commandments and whichever other laws people tend to think are important at the time).

Lutheran (Formula of Concord)

The Lutheran document “The Formula of Concord” enumerates three uses in Article VI, saying that the “Law was given to men for three reasons…”  These are that:

1. “thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men”

2. “men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins”

and the infamous 3rd use:

3. “after they are regenerate … they might … have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life.”

Now, the Formula of Concord was developed several years after Luther died, at the direction of Elector August of Saxony. Luther himself never taught 3 uses of the law, and probably would have thrown a fit over number three, which is clearly outside of and contrary to anything Paul taught about the law (the law causes sin to increase, the written code kills, yada, yada).   But, we’ll come back to this.

Calvin

Calvin, who in my opinion tried as best as he could to undo the essence of the Lutheran reformation, also taught 3 uses of the law, pedagogical, civil, and didactic.  His three uses, however, seem to misconstrue the essence of Paul.  His first use, pedagogical or “to tutor,” is of course straight from Paul, but he seems to miss the point. The civil use, to keep people from sinning, also shows a clear misunderstanding of Paul, who as I’ve already pointed out clearly said that the law causes sin to increase. By the 3rd use, didactic, Calvin meant that the Mosaic law can be used to teach and provoke people to good works. This concept, of course, is not found in the New Testament either.  So, I’ll just ignore Calvin for the remainder of my thinking about uses of the law (it is my blog, after all).

 Back to Luther(an)

While most Lutherans (especially those liberal ones) only recognize the first two uses of the law as found in the “Formula,” some such as the Missouri Synod are champions of the 3rd use of the law, at times seemingly in preference to the other two. Now I’d be happy for some wise MS Lutheran to show me I’m wrong on this, but this is what I’ve seemed to find among the Concordia crowd.

The Real  3rd Use of the Law

Now, I’m going to get a touch sarcastic here, but I really don’t mean to offend anyone. I’m just trying to raise an issue and make a point.  It seems to me that among some 3rd Users, the real 3rd use of the law is to be able to hammer it over the head of someone else.  Seriously, I’ve seen some of the most vile, judgmental, and downright mean comments on the internet coming from these nice, grace-loving Lutherans who just love to be able to say “I’m not as sinful as you.”

What’s up with that?

I’ve thought about this for months, and keep seeing it again and again, and it really, really bothers me.  This kind of attitude is no different than what Jesus talked about in Luke 18:10-14. Is grace just for us, or should we perhaps spread it around just a bit?  Or is grace only good for polite or socially-acceptable sins?

It is, okay, by the way, to disagree with other Christians, even to say, “I’m sorry, but I believe you’re a heretic.” Paul himself set an example for this. However, ad hominem, dehumanizing attacks are a different story. As the great doctor once said, “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

What Paul Didn’t Teach

Paul never taught that the Law was an acceptable tool to use to pronounce judgment on others, and Jesus certainly didn’t.  Paul also didn’t teach that being justified by grace made us better than anyone else.

So What Did Paul Teach About the Law?

That’s a very good question.  In my mind (an often scary place), neither of the above lists really hits the mark. For one thing, I don’t think Paul ever meant for there to be such a list. Paul used examples to make points, like Jesus did with his parables and sayings. One day Jesus would say, “The Kingdom is like this” and another day he would say, “the kingdom is like that.”  They aren’t competing ideas, and they aren’t mutually exclusive or definitive. They’re examples. I don’t think Paul ever intended his letters to be seen as an exhaustive, definitive analysis of the law; however, taken as a whole, I think we can come up with a pretty good picture of Paul’s thinking.

My Plan

So, I am seriously considering going through Paul’s letters and discussing his various comments about the law. I may get sidetracked or bushwhacked, but at the moment this is my plan.  It could be interesting. Really.

 

 

Written on 11 January 2012 by me under Law & Gospel, The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

Nothing but the dead and dying

I spent a few hours today in my yard with a leaf-blower, a rake, and a great many large green plastic bags. I appreciate my trees very much. In fact, I planted two of the trees—an ornamental cherry and a bloodgood Japanese maple— in our yard myself, not to mention a dozen or so evergreens.

I even like autumn leaves. I love to watch the chlorophyll-green give way to their default colors, and freshly-fallen leaves have been one of my favorite things to photograph. However, at some point they begin to decay. In Oregon, as it rains often this time of year, the fallen leaves mash together and start to rot, killing the grass underneath. Then, it means several weeks of raking, blowing, mowing and bagging.

Today as I was leaf-blowing and raking, I began to think about the leaf-cycle, and how autumn really is a season of death. The chorus of Paul Simon’s “My Little Town” started running through my brain, “Nothing but the dead and dying…” I’m not being morbid, I’m just acknowledging reality. Autumn shows us in very clear ways that the circle of life is not all about life. And in Oregon, while there’s still a lot of green going on, we don’t have the advantage of snow to cover up the signs of death that autumn brings. While we love the colors of autumn, we can’t escape the fact that in the end, death stinks, and it’s ugly. And, we have to deal with it.

Christmastime is here

As I blew and raked and bagged the thousands of dead, rotting leaves, I was also aware of how Christmas—regardless of what time of year Jesus was actually born—breaks into the “dead zone” of the circle of life. For us upper Northern hemisphere folks, Christmas is perfectly timed to demonstrate the power of the incarnation in a very tangible way. To borrow from Paul (Rom. 5:6), at just the right time, while we were dead in our sins, Christ came.  The incarnation—what we celebrate as Christmas—breaks into the downswing of the circle of life bringing super-life into the “bleak midwinter.”  Christmas tells us, among other things, that after winter there is a spring, and that there will be an Easter.

While we were “nothing but the dead and dying,” God sent Jesus. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (Jn 1:4). Christmas… lights… gifts… it all fits. We sometimes miss it, in spite of everything. But that doesn’t stop God from breaking through; nothing can stop Christmas from coming.

Today, it’s nothing but the dead and dying. However, we deal with it knowing that in a few days, it will be Joy to the World.

 

 

 

Written on 13 December 2011 by me under Random Thoughts with 1 Comment

Thanks, part 2: Keeping on the Sunny Side

We all know the analogy about the half-full glass—or is it half-empty?

It is a fact that two people can look at the same set of facts and come away with much different ideas. The facts didn’t change; the difference is how the people interpret the facts. One of my favorite songs has become the old Carter Family classic, Keep on the Sunny Side:

Well there’s a dark and a troubled side of life.
There’s a bright and a sunny side too.
But if you meet with the darkness and strife,
The sunny side we also may view.

Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side,
Keep on the sunny side of life.
It will help us every day, it will brighten all the way,
If we keep on the sunny side of life.

However, I think the difference between half-empty and half-full is more than simply keeping a positive attitude, or looking at the sunny side. I think it has to do with being thankful—or not.

We live in a culture which is increasingly focused on what we don’t have, and on the importance of equality as being defined as having what everyone else has.  The goal of advertising, politics, and even entertainment is to tell what what we don’t have, and to make us believe that we need something that only someone else can give us.

As the Colonel on MASH used to say, it’s horse-hockey.

The Bible tells us we have been given all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). We have enough, and that’s a lot to be thankful for. Of course, if you want something other than that, you’re on your own. Being thankful for what is in your glass—or even that you have a glass in the first place—is a choice. It requires adjusting your focus.

There is “a dark and troubled side to life,” and we shouldn’t pretend it doesn’t exist. However, there is also a sunny side. When you keep on the sunny side by focusing and being thankful for what you’ve been given, you can still see the dark side, but it never looks quite as bad.

Written on 24 November 2011 by me under Random Thoughts, This I know with 1 Comment