The gospel of Matthew (written by a Jew to a Jewish audience) starts by listing the ancestry of Jesus from Abraham through David and to Joseph, the earthly (though not biological) father of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, (writing to a Gentile audience) traces Jesus’ ancestry all the way back to Adam but going to Mary, not Joseph. (Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli, but that was actually Mary’s father. Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law.) Matthew mentions an angel visiting Joseph, while Luke mentions the same angel visiting Mary. Luke also exclusively includes the story of Elizabeth and Zechariah (the parents of John the Baptist), Jesus being born in a manger in Bethlehem, the shepherds visiting the newborn, and Mary and Joseph dedicating Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem. Matthew mentions none of those but instead includes the visit from the Magi, Mary and Joseph’s escape to Egypt, and their eventual return to Nazareth.

So what exactly are we to make of these discrepancies? Either they’re flat-out inaccurate and therefore can’t be trusted or they’re merely incomplete. And if they’re incomplete, the next question becomes why?

Why was it important for Matthew to include the stories of the Magi and the escape to Egypt but not for Luke? In fact, if you read Luke 2:39, it says that after Mary and Joseph had fulfilled the requirements of the law (in Jerusalem), they returned home to Nazareth; there’s absolutely no inclusion of their time in Bethlehem (where the Magi visited them when Jesus was probably 2-3 years old) or in Egypt (where they lived for at least a year or two). How could Luke, who himself stated that he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and was determined to write a “careful account” of the life of Jesus, miss such significant events which spanned several years of Jesus’ life?

And why would Luke include a detailed account of Jesus’ dedication at the temple in Jerusalem and subsequent encounters with the prophets Simeon and Anna but not Matthew? Such accounts would’ve actually bolstered Matthew’s argument to the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah, so it’s odd that Matthew would leave them out.

Why the differences? I don’t really know. Maybe Matthew didn’t know about Simeon and Anna and therefore couldn’t have included them. Maybe Matthew saw the visit from the Magi as being more of a significant event than Luke did; after all, kings coming to worship Jesus would enforce the Messianic argument, and there were both practical and symbolic meanings behind their gifts. And even if they both knew about all of the events, which ones were included may have depended on the audience and the narrative each writer was trying to create. Matthew, for example, wouldn’t have mentioned the angel visiting Mary or her ancestry since the Jews were a patriarchal society, while Luke, writing to Gentiles, wasn’t bound to such limitations.

But then there’s the possibility that the gospels are just inaccurate. With little supporting historical documentation, all we have to go on is these two accounts; we don’t even have the other two gospels to back us up. Is it possible that Matthew and/or Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth was fabricated or at least twisted into some kind of legend? Both gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death after all. Personally, I don’t think so, and here’s why. Matthew and Luke, while each taking different approaches in their retelling of Christ’s birth, don’t specifically contradict each other. It’s very possible to piece them together into a single chronological narrative without contradicting the two gospels’ timelines. Yes, Luke 2:39 said that Mary and Joseph returned home to Nazareth after their stop in Jerusalem, but that could’ve been years after the Magi visit and the escape to Egypt. No, Matthew doesn’t mention the dedication in Jerusalem, but that may have just been understood implicitly by his Jewish readers. Yes, an angel visited both Mary and Joseph, but the exact timing of those visits doesn’t really matter.

But beyond that, it’s important to point out how similar both Matthew and Luke’s accounts are. Both agree that Jesus’ earthly parents were Mary and Joseph and that they were engaged when Mary became pregnant (Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27). Both agree that Jesus was a descendant of David (through both Joseph and Mary), an important argument for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Matt 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38). Both writers agree that Mary became pregnant while she was still a virgin and that the Holy Spirit was the cause of her conception (Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27, 34-35). Both agree that the news of Mary’s pregnancy was initially unexpected and troublesome but that Mary and Joseph stayed together anyway (Matt 1:24-25, Luke 2:1-5). Both Matthew and Luke agree that the name “Jesus” was given to the parents by an angel and that the angel identified him as Savior (Matt 1:21, Luke 2:11,21). Both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt 2:1, Luke 1:5, 2:11). Both agree that Jesus was both the king of the Jews and the promised Messiah (Matt 2:2-4, Luke 1:32-33, 2:11). And both agree that Jesus was raised in Nazareth (also an important Old Testament prophecy) (Matt 2:23, Luke 2:39). Furthermore, while the two gospels were both written about the same time (around 60 AD), most scholars agree that neither writer knew about the other’s account. Therefore, we have what amounts to two separate independent accounts of the birth of Christ that while differing slightly in some places, support each other when it comes to the most significant details.

But what about Mark and John, who don’t even mention the birth of Christ? For Mark (the first of the gospel writers), he may not have thought it was necessary to include it. And for John, it was more important to show the deity of Jesus; His earthly birth was simply summed up with the statement that “the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” Do either of those choices discredit Matthew and Luke’s accounts? No.

But why is it important to reconcile the two stories anyway? Because if they’re wrong, then we can’t trust anything that comes afterward. But personally, I don’t think they are. There are just too many similarities between them to discount them entirely. Yes, the two accounts are different in some aspects, but different doesn’t equal inaccurate.

Previously:
The Gospel Project
Look for the search lights
Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy
‘My God, it’s full of stars’

Anyway, I don’t really do New Year’s resolutions, but I am starting a new Bible reading plan today. I’ll be reading through all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) simultaneously in chronological order. Seminary-type folks call this the “harmony of the Gospels”, but to me that sounds like a southern church choir led by Aretha Franklin, so instead I’m referring to it as the Gospel Project.

Here’s how it works: I took the “harmony of the Gospels” chronology from my Life Application Study Bible and divided it up into 70 days. That works out to one reading assignment every weekday from now through Good Friday on April 6. I’ve left the weekends open in case I fall behind and need to catch up. Pretty easy, no?

If you’re interested in doing it, too, I’ve included the plan in PDF format below:

>> The Gospel Project (PDF)

I’m really excited about this project. I’ve read each of the gospels numerous times but never in parallel with each other. By reading them chronologically, I’m hoping to get a much more complete picture of who Jesus is and better understand the context of what happened throughout His life.

One of the complaints that non-Christians have of the Bible is that each of the four gospels is extremely different. They see these differences as a way to discredit Scripture; after all, if it were really true, then all four would say the same thing, right? Well, no, not necessarily. Think of it this way: If someone were to ask four siblings to write a biography of their father, each one would include different events depending on how they remember things, which details were most important to them, and what kind of narrative they were trying to present. Naturally, there would be a lot of overlap, especially when it came to major events, but there would be lot of things that would only make it in to one or two bios but not the others. It’s the same with the gospels. Each one offers a slightly different view of Jesus. While there are a lot of similarities, each presents a slightly different narrative depending on what the author’s purpose was. It’s only when you put all four together that you get a full 360° view of this man known as Jesus of Nazareth.

To begin to understand the different gospels, you first have to go to the book of Revelation. In Chapter 4, John describes four “living creatures”, all of whom were covered in eyes front and back: a lion, an ox (or calf), a human, and an eagle. Scholars sometimes equate each of these creatures with one of the four gospels:

Lion = Mark. Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, presents Jesus as a king who has authority over heaven and earth. Mark doesn’t recount Jesus’ birth but instead focuses on what He did during His ministry: the people He healed, His authority over demons, etc.

Ox = Matthew. Matthew, a Jew, was writing to a Jewish audience. His purpose was to present Jesus as the promised Messiah. As a result, Jesus would’ve been the ultimate sacrifice for the Jews, the culmination of the Mosaic law. Matthew doesn’t present his gospel in chronological order, instead focusing on proving how Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

Human = Luke. Luke, a Gentile or non-Jew, wrote to a Gentile audience. His purpose was to present a highly detailed and complete biography of Jesus. Thus, you see His humanity more in this gospel than in any others.

Eagle = John. John presents Jesus as not just the Son of God but as God Himself, as much spirit as human. Like Mark, John doesn’t recount Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Instead, John goes all the way back to before Creation to show that Jesus has always existed with God and as part of God.

I don’t know how much of this project I’ll end up blogging about. Probably some, but I don’t have any specific plans. If you decide to do follow along, though, I’d love to hear from you. You can leave me a comment below or shoot me a tweet.

Happy reading!

Previously:
Bible reading: It is finished (but just beginning)
Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy
Will you stay, or will you go?
Who are you following?
In the beginning…

By now we’ve seen numerous examples both the redeeming and corrupting potential of technology and how that relates to us as Christians. We’ve seen how God first commanded us to “cultivate” His creation in the Garden of Eden and how even after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden, God continued to use technology to further His plans, from Noah’s Ark to the Ten Commandment to the Ark of the Covenant. And yet, there’s no question technology can be extremely destructive, allowing mankind to separate ourselves from our Creator as an act of rebellion.

So it’s not just redemption we need, it’s restoration. We don’t just need another coat of paint to cover up the flaws and defects of this city we’ve built, it needs to be demolished and replaced with a whole new one that’s perfect.

Restoration.

“Every good technology,” Dyer says, “comes with a trade-off of some kind. Newer tools bring us benefits, but those benefits come with a cost.” In economics terms, that’s called an opportunity cost. When we chose one thing, we miss out on whatever benefits the alternative would offer. If we choose to have our cake, we can’t have the satisfaction of eating it. But if we choose to eat the cake, then it’s gone forever. When it comes to technology, sometimes those opportunity costs are quite staggering. As Dyer points out, sometimes there can be economic consequences when newer technology displaces people who make their living working with the now-obsolete versions. Sometimes there can be physical consequences. For example, driving has largely replaced walking and working at a computer has replaced a lot of manual labor, resulting in a much more sedentary lifestyle for people, which leads to numerous health problems. And sometimes new technology can have social consequences. Yes, we’re more connected than ever because of the Internet, but in a way we’re also more isolated than ever.

The problem is, no matter how good we are at making new tools, we’ll never be able to fix every problem in the world. We might eliminate one problem, but in the process we’ve created three more. So how can we “restore” the world? We can’t.

But God can.

Dyer points to the life of Jesus to see how technology can be used by God to be restorative. Jesus was, after all, a carpenter, someone who used technology on a daily basis. But the two technologies that had the most impact were the cross and the tomb:

The gospel of John begins by telling us that the entire world and everything in it was created by the Son of God. God had again become immediate, walking among his creations. But then John tells us that Jesus “came unto his own but his own did not receive him.” In other words, the Creator was rejected by his own creation. This rejection reached its culmination in the cross when God’s highest creation used the creative powers he gave them to create a tool designed to put their Creator to death. In the cross, we find the Son of God rejected by the humans he created with his heavenly Father, and the Son of Man murdered by the tools he and his earthly father used. At Golgotha, Jesus hung naked and bloody from a tree that he had spoken into existence, but that humans had transformed into a tool of death. The cross, then, is a symbol of the distorted creation turning on its creator. That twisted tree represents the twisted us, a humanity transformed by sin and bent toward death.

Why, then, do we wear these grotesque distortions of sin around our necks? Why are they on top of our churches and in the background of our PowerPoint slides?

It is because Christ’s transformative power goes beyond wood and nails. He has declared that the cross is no longer a symbol of deformation but of the transformative work Christ accomplished for us. Whenever we attempt to transform the natural world for destructive purposes, the cross says that God can transform that evil and restore what was lost.

The tomb, too, has been transformed by Jesus from a symbol of death — when His body was laid in the grave reserved for Joseph of Arimathea — to a symbol of life — when Jesus was resurrected three days later.

Technology can “redeem” us or recover us. But it’s only through God that it can truly restore us, returning us to original condition, the state we were in before we sinned against Him. In the book of Revelation, we see that restoration take place. Our earthly cities are wiped out, replaced by a new one that is sinless and eternal. The new city in Revelation is the equivalent of the Garden in Genesis: a place where the Creator and His creation can have an eternal relationship with one another, where mankind worships God while working and cultivating his new home.

Dyer defines this process as the tetrad of technology:

• Creation (Reflection) – Using tools to make technology is a reflection of our Creator
• Fall (Rebellion) – Every technology has the potential to be used for sin. While the tools themselves are morally neutral, embedded in their design is “a tendency of usage from which a set of values emerge”
• Redemption – Tools can be used for redemptive purposes, although our ability to “redeem” is limited
• Restoration – Only God can fully restore mankind back to its original sinless state

The good news is that in time we’ll be completely restored. In the meantime, however, we have to realize the opportunity costs that come with every technology. Those costs can be intentional or unintentional, positive or negative, but they can’t be avoided. As a Church, then, Dyer says “we must discern when those tools are in conflict with the value system of the kingdom of God. Just as the promise of resurrection does not imply that we are free to neglect our souls and bodies, the promise to restore our tools does not give us license to create or use tools that abuse God’s creation and distort the kind of life he has commanded us to live.”

Previously:
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 1: Perspective
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 2: Imagination
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 3: Reflection
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 4: Definition
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 5: Rebellion
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 6: Approach
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 7: Redemption
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 7: Redemption (cont’d)
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 8: Mediums

Naturally, the media jumped on his comments, happily characterizing him as some backwoods Bible-thumper. A lot of Christian churches backpedaled, not willing to condemn the LDS Church. And Rick Perry himself, whom Jeffress had endorsed, quickly distanced himself from the pastor. When asked if Mormonism was a cult, Perry said without hesitation, “No.”

But the fact of the matter is, Dr. Jeffress is exactly right.

Merriam-Webster defines a “cult” as “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and Mormonism is definitely unorthodox compared to Christianity. While Mormonism shares many of the same elements as Christianity, including God, Jesus, and the Bible, the beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church are far outside of both Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

The most obvious difference between Mormonism and Christianity has to do with the Bible. For Christians, the Bible is the sole source of Scripture. Mormons, however, add other texts such the Book of Mormon, a collection of “scriptures” supposedly written by various ancient prophets and revealed to Joseph Smith in 1823. The Book of Mormon adds to and revises the Bible, which alone places Mormonism outside of traditional Christianity. The Pearl of Great Price is another Mormon text, which contains the Book of Moses (essentially a readaptation of the first six chapters of Genesis), the Book of Abraham (an Egyptian text proven to be fraudulent), some text from Smith’s translation of the Bible, excerpts from his autobiography, and the 13 Articles of Faith. And finally, there is the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of 138 “revelations” that further define the exact belief system of the Mormon religion. While Mormons generally don’t publicly refer to these other texts, quoting only the Bible so as to avoid controversy, they are part of the LDS canon and integral to their faith. And much of these texts directly contradict what Christians believe about God, Creation, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell, and salvation.

Consider the Great Council in Heaven, as told in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham and which summarizes the Mormon beliefs. From LDS.org:

Before this earth was organized so that we could live on it, we lived very happily as spirit children of our heavenly parents. Our spirits looked like the physical bodies that we have now, and each spirit had a distinct personality with strengths and weaknesses. While in this spirit world, we grew until we could no longer progress without a physical body. We wanted to prove our worthiness and become more like our Heavenly Father. We were anxious to receive a physical body and undergo a time of testing.

Heavenly Father called a great council of all His spirit children. All the noble and great ones who would live on the earth were there—future prophets, apostles, presidents, mothers and fathers, and all those who would come to earth in the last days to teach the gospel to the people of the world.

Heavenly Father explained that an earth would be prepared for us and that we would each receive a physical body. While on earth, we would have our agency, the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Of course, Heavenly Father knew we would be happier if we chose the right, but agency meant that we would also have the ability to choose the wrong. To help us make right choices, we would be taught gospel principles so that we would know how we should live.

Heavenly Father told us that after we were born on earth, we would not remember our life in heaven. We would need to use faith, to trust in God without being able to see Him. Heavenly Father knew from His own experiences that choosing the right is sometimes very hard but that this would make us stronger. He also knew that some of His children would choose evil and would be unable to return to Him, however much He loved them.

Heavenly Father knew we would all make mistakes, and He explained that we would need a savior, a person who would be willing to atone for our sins so that we could receive forgiveness when we repent. One of the Spirits among us was like God. He offered to serve Heavenly Father and be a savior for all the spirit children. This was Jesus. Because of His great love for us, His brothers and sisters, He offered to give His life to atone for our sins. He would also teach us what we must do to return to Heavenly Father. Unselfishly He said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”

Lucifer, another of God’s spirit sons, proposed, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem [save] all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”

Lucifer’s willful, glory-seeking plan would have forced all the children of God to return to heaven. He wanted to take away our greatest gift, the right to choose for ourselves. Lucifer would not have allowed anyone to make a wrong decision, and we would have been like puppets with him controlling us.

Some of God’s children liked Lucifer’s idea, and one-third of them decided to follow him. Heavenly Father loved Lucifer and these spirit children, but because they refused to follow His plan, they were no longer worthy to remain with Him. Therefore they were cast out of heaven and could not be born on the earth and receive physical bodies.

Many of those who followed Heavenly Father’s plan were ordained to do important things on earth. Each of us has received special talents and abilities that can be increased when we use them to help each other. Heavenly Father has provided everything we need to return to Him.

In the Mormon religion, as in Christianity, the Godhead is comprised of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, Mormons believe that both God (“Heavenly Father”) and Jesus (the “Son” or sometimes referred to as the “Only Begotten”) have a physical body similar to ours with flesh and bones. And that God isn’t the only god, that He was once a mortal man on a another planet “who progressed by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel he had on his world, then he died. He became a resurrected man and evolved to become a god.” Further, it is widely taught and believed among Mormons that along with Heavenly Father there is a Heavenly Mother who is married to God. In the Mormon Godhead, the three beings are completely separate in identity but act together toward a single purpose. In the Christian Godhead (or Trinity), the three are both distinct and completely the same being (God) concurrently.

Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. Mormons also recognize Mary but believe that Jesus was conceived by the physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary and is thus part spirit and part man (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853; Teaching of Ezra Taft Benson, 7). Jesus, then, having a physical body just as the Heavenly Father does, is both the firstborn “spirit child” of God and the eldest brother of all mortals, including Lucifer (Satan). Jesus, Mormons believe, offered to act as our Savior, making an atonement for our sins so that we could ascend to the Father’s kingdom and eventually achieve godhood for ourselves just as the Heavenly Father did.

This is different from the Christian view of Jesus, who being both fully God and fully human, existed before mankind was created and who was given up by God as a sacrifice for our sins so that through His sacrifice we could be rescued from eternal separation from Him. The distinction here is slight but extremely important. In the Mormon faith, Jesus is one of us, a spirit child literally born from God and our spiritual brother. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God and be equals with Him. In the Christian faith, Jesus is fully God who has always coexisted with God the Father. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God in heaven, but we will never obtain godhood for ourselves. Rather, we will serve and worship God for eternity.

The differences between the Mormon view of salvation and eternity and the Christian view is often hard to explain because the LDS Church uses so many of the same terms. In the Mormon version, a person is saved when he professes his belief in God, Jesus, Joseph Smith as a prophet, and Brigham Young as Smith’s successor (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:229, 7:289). Following baptism by immersion, which typically happens around the age of 8, a person is confirmed as a member of the Church and then receives the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. It’s important to point out that while Mormons share Christianity’s view that salvation comes only through the grace of God through Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mormons don’t believe in Original Sin or human depravity as Christians do. Further, Mormons place a greater emphasis on earthly works, as those works will help determine what level of heaven you and your family will ascend to after your death.

Upon one’s death, Mormon’s believe, they will end up in one of three different spiritual kingdoms: the Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom, or Telestial kingdom.

The celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms of glory. Those in this kingdom will dwell forever in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This should be your goal: to inherit celestial glory and to help others receive that great blessing as well. Such a goal is not achieved in one attempt; it is the result of a lifetime of righteousness and constancy of purpose.

The celestial kingdom is the place prepared for those who have “received the testimony of Jesus” and been “made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood” (D&C 76:51, 69). To inherit this gift, we must receive the ordinances of salvation, keep the commandments, and repent of our sins.

Those who fall short of the Celestial kingdom may end up in either the Terrestrial kingdom (for people who are honorable members of the LDS Church but who weren’t quite good enough) or the Telestial kingdom (for people who were not saved through the LDS Church but who were freed after their death from their spirit prison via baptism by proxy, which I’ve written about before). Those who aren’t worthy of any of these three kingdoms will end up in Perdition, which is similar to hell.

Christians don’t recognize these different spiritual kingdoms, only heaven and hell. For Christians, it’s through Jesus, and Him alone, that we are saved from the punishment of our sins (John 14:6). Romans 10:9-10 says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.” Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but rather a public demonstration of what has already happened internally (Romans 6:5-8, Colossians 2:11-13). And works have nothing to do with determining one’s salvation but rather is evidence of it (Romans 3:27-28).

It’s often difficult to discern the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Both use the Bible and both use very similar terms and concepts. But they are not the same. Mormonism teaches things that are in no way consistent with the Bible and traditional Christianity. Whether that technically makes it a cult or not is open to interpretation, I suppose. In my opinion, it absolutely does.

Previously:
It’s not just religion that America is ignorant about
Baptism of the dead?
Survey: Other religions can lead to eternal life
Faith and the Presidency

And three days ago, I finished it.

Here’s my final completed chart. Each of those squares is a chapter of the Bible, and the gray ones are those I’ve read. I think it’s just missing a gold star and maybe a smiley face. Maybe I’ll Photoshop that in later.

So what have I learned over the past year? A lot, actually. I’ve already blogged about a few of those things (here, here, here, here, aaand here), but there’s a lot more.

First off, the Bible is hard. It’s a tough book to read, not just because of the length or the subject material, but because in many parts it’s not really that exciting. Most of the Bible is comprised of the Old Testament, which spans from the beginning of the universe to about 400 years before the birth of Jesus. That’s a long time. The OT is mostly a historical narrative of the ancient Israelites, passed down verbally through many generations before being collected and written down by a variety of scribes and prophets. From a scholarly perspective, it’s interesting. But it’s also dry, repetitive, and often confusing. No one says, “I’ll think I’ll do a little light reading,” and then picks up Deuteronomy or 1 Chronicles. And the prophetic books are just as difficult. You need a cheatsheet to keep track of all the various kings of Israel and Judah and which ones the prophets are talking about, and then of course you have to try and pronounce them.

That’s why most Christians–myself included–tend to stay in the New Testament. Not only is it easier to understand, it also seems much more relevant to our day-to-day lives. It’s less about history (although there’s a lot of history in the NT) and more about applying the lessons of the Gospel. The problem is, without all that boring OT stuff, the New Testament has no foundation. Why did Jesus come, and why was His death and resurrection so important? You can’t begin to really appreciate the significance of the birth of Jesus without understanding everything that led up to that moment. You have to have the context, which the Old Testament provides.

That said, it’s impossible to get it all in a year. Unless you’re a seminary student or just have nothing else to do for 12 months, you simply don’t have time to dig down into the Scripture and make complete sense of it and still be able to get through the whole thing in a year. In any given week, I’d have upwards of 20 chapters to read. Being the slacker I am, I typically condensed that into 3 or 4 days, using my lunch hour to read the chapters online. Maybe I could’ve gotten more out of it had I used all 7 days and used my study Bible with all its footnotes and maps and diagrams. But even then, I think I would’ve only barely scratched the surface. So instead of worrying about all the details, I focused on the big picture narrative. In that sense, it was a success. But I don’t think I’ll be repeating the exercise again for a while. The big picture is good, but I kept thinking I really need to come back and dig into this more later.

Another problem I ran into was my stupid human nature. I really wanted my heart to be in it, and it was sometimes. But often, I read just to get it checked off my to-do list. I didn’t care about what impact it really had on my life, I just wanted to get through it. Particularly when you’ve spent several months buried in the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and they just seem to go on forever. I was so excited in June when I got to go back to Mark after not seeing the New Testament since January. Maybe I would’ve been more engaged had a I followed a different schedule, but I was committed to following the schedule my pastor gave us. Still, with the OT being as long as it is, it’s impossible to not spend the bulk of your time there.

Even though I wasn’t always feeling it, however, I tried to make as much sense of it as I could. I mentioned in an earlier blog post that my faith had been really challenged. Anyone who reads the Bible cover to cover and walks away with fewer questions than answers isn’t paying attention. The Bible is kind of a weird book. You have books like Genesis and Revelation that talk about extremes–the extreme beginning and the extreme end–and things sometimes get really bizarre. A talking serpent? A beast with seven heads and ten horns? These are the mushy parts, the parts we don’t have reliable facts to back up. Much of the Bible is historically accurate and can be verified through non-biblical sources. But the mushy parts are where people, especially Christians, get tripped up. And then you have the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), which are mostly consistent but sometimes totally contradict each other. As a Christian, what do we do with that? Do we try and reconcile the discrepancies or overlook them? Further, how much of the Bible is literal fact and how much is allegory? And how do we know which is which? What about evolution, dinosaurs, or non-biblical stories of the Great Flood such as the Epic of Gilgamesh? Or forget those. What about people in China or South America, cultures who had thriving, advanced societies at the same time the Israelites were wandering through the Sinai Desert. Where do those folks fit in? Clearly, the Gospel applies to them, but there’s no mention of the Zhou Dynasty or the Mayans anywhere in the Bible.

The short answer, I think, is that some things just fall outside of the scope of the Bible. It’s not a complete history of every culture that has ever lived or a scientific catalog of every species. But it does explain who God is and our relationship to Him, and that’s really the purpose of it. For some people, that may not be a good enough answer. They want more facts and figures and concrete numbers and then throw the whole thing out when it doesn’t provide them. To those people, I guess I should apologize. But the Bible is what it is. Why is so much left up to interpretation or left out entirely? I don’t know. But does that mean it’s invalid? No, I don’t think it does.

There’s more I could go into, and maybe I’ll come back to some of it later. Suffice it to say, it was a really challenging endeavor spiritually but an extremely worthwhile one. Although my faith was challenged repeatedly, it was also strengthened immensely. I did learn some factual stuff I didn’t know before, but more than anything, I developed a better understanding of the nature of God, how much He loves us and how much He wants to have a relationship with us. It’s easy to miss that when you just read a few chapters or a single book, but when you read the whole thing, you see it everywhere. If you’re a Christian and you’ve never read the entire Bible, I’d definitely encourage you to do so. As difficult as it is sometimes, it’s well worth the effort.

In the meantime, as the title of this post suggests, even though I’ve read through the whole Bible, I’m really just getting started. I’ve gotten the high level overview, the big picture. Now to start digging down into the core of it. I have an idea of where I want to go next, but I’ll save that for another post.

Previously:
Thoughts on Genesis
Bible reading: At the halfway mark
Bible reading: Jeremiah is a bullfrog
Bible reading: Exile
Who is your Elihu?

It was like the day was burning
Everywhere he turned, he saw the fields on fire
Captive by the wire

Home fell like breaking china
Fear was the only thing they shared at all
Bearing every soul

Oh, give me rest tonite

– Hoi Polloi, “Rest Tonite”

Texas is in the midst of one of the worst droughts in the state’s history and suffering through one of its hottest summers. Here in the DFW Metroplex, we racked up 40 days straight of triple-digit high temperatures in July and August, two days short of tying a record, and have so far had 57 days total over 100 degrees, with that number climbing daily. Further south, it’s much worse. Austin has already had 69 days of 100 degree-plus weather and much less rainfall. Losses in crops and livestock due to the drought have cost Texas $5.2 billion, and much of the state is under severe water restrictions.

And there’s no sign of relief any time soon. While the temperatures will eventually subside in a month or so, meteorologists are saying we’re probably in for another drier-than-normal La Niña winter. Which means things will probably get a lot worse before they get any better.

Not that I want to go back to the ice and snow we had back in February that all but shut down the Metroplex for a week, but I’d like to at least go outside without the fear of spontaneous combustion. Is that too much to ask?

As bad as the weather is, though, it’s something you expect living in North Texas. Triple-digit heat for weeks on end in summer is perfectly normal, and anyone who’s lived here more than a couple of years knows how to deal with it. What’s debilitating, however, is the other kind of drought, the one that doesn’t come with maps, charts, and rainfall records.

It’s the physical drought, emotional drought, spiritual drought, financial drought. All of which I’ve been dealing with lately. More than just being in a rut, it’s the sense that nothing is ever going to get better, that relief from the current stresses and struggles is never going to arrive.

I haven’t been sleeping well. My back has been killing me due in part to the horrible bed we have, and I toss and turn at night only to wake up just as exhausted as I was the night before. I haven’t been eating right or exercising, which of course hasn’t helped the situation. And the financial hardships we’ve faced over the past several months have weighed heavily on me, not that I’m bothering to pray about them like I should. I have been reading my Bible, still on track to finish my year-long commitment to read the Bible by the end of September. But often I squeeze in my reading on my lunch break just to get through it and cross it off my list, not taking the time to reflect on what God is trying to tell me through His Word.

The result is that I’ve felt drained all the way around. Stuck. Worthless. Hopeless. Even though I know that just as with the months-long drought, the situation won’t last forever. Even though I know I can actually change some things on my own now, even if the changes are incremental.

Costa Rican missionary Jamie Wright recently wrote about a neighbor who, unable to sleep for weeks on end because of another neighbor’s barking dogs, has repeatedly begged for the barking to end, desperate to get some rest: ”PAZ SEÑOR, PAZ POR FAVOR….necesito dormir. NECESITO DORMIR… HAGA ALGO…”

“PEACE, SIR, PEACE PLEASE… I need to sleep. I NEED TO SLEEP… DO SOMETHING…”

And that’s exactly how I’ve felt. Tired, sore, beaten down, and desperate for rest.

There was a tinge of disappointment when our 40-day streak of hundred-degree heat was briefly broken a couple of weeks ago. If we were gonna suffer through so much heat, then we wanted some kind of recognition for it; we wanted to be Number 1. But I think there’s something significant about the streak only lasting 40 days.

In the beginning of His ministry, Jesus went into the wilderness and fasted for 40 days. During that time He was tempted by Satan, but the Bible says Jesus also became very hungry. Knowing how long that 40 days of heat felt like (somewhere around an eternity), I can’t imagine fasting for that long. Something tells me “very hungry” would be a drastic understatement. And yet that’s how long He was out there. Did He feel tired? Beaten down? Desperate? I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure there was a reason He did it. Jesus was about to begin a three-year ministry that would end with His death on a Roman cross. He knew the road ahead of Him and knew how difficult it would be. But it was necessary, and He needed time alone with His Father before it began.

Of course, there’s a big difference between a fast and a drought. Jesus chose to fast; we didn’t choose to have a drought. Yet both are hardships, and both bring pain. Hebrews 5:8 says, “Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.” There’s no question Jesus suffered during His 40 days in the wilderness. But through that suffering He learned obedience. In the midst of pain, you essentially have two choices: You can grow up or you can give up. Jesus didn’t give up. And neither can I.

This past Sunday our pastor talked about James 1:2-4:

Dear brothers and sisters, when troubles come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy. For you know that when your faith is tested, your endurance has a chance to grow. So let it grow, for when your endurance is fully developed, you will be perfect and complete, needing nothing.

When you’re going through the troubles, the pain, the drought, he said, you’re not gonna feel joy. You’re gonna hurt. You’re gonna mourn. But the joy comes in the fact that your faith is being tested, that it’s being proven real. It’s easy to have faith when it’s never tested, but if it’s never tested, how do you know you can really depend on it? Only through putting it to the fire can we know that it can withstand the flames. And for that reason, James says, we should be joyful.

So that’s where I am: in the middle of the fire. Tired, beaten down, financially broke, spiritually broken, desperate for rest. And yet somehow full of joy and thankful for the drought.

Previously:
Who is your Elihu?
Look for the search lights
What, me worry?
Who’s in your mine?

I try to be the best father I can for my kids, and as the song says, I don’t want to let them down. In the end, I hope I will have done enough and set the right example for my kids to follow. But more importantly, I pray that they’ll keep running toward “this hope that I can’t see”, Jesus Christ.

Remedy Drive – Follow Me

Why do some stars have to fall?
And why do some hearts have to break?
But today your only question for me is, “Can we go outside and play?”

Why do some ears miss the call?
Is this free will, or are we pawns of fate?
But today your only question for me is, “Can I stay up late?”

And son, I don’t have all the answers
And I don’t want to let you down
All I know is that I’m running towards this hope that I can’t see
And son, I hope you’ll follow me

Why is the moon turning red?
Why is there war, why is there hatred?
But tonight all you’re asking of me is, “One more story before bed”

And son, I don’t have all the answers
And I don’t want to let you down
All I know is that I’m running towards this hope that I can’t see
And son, I hope you’ll follow me

Keep on running, child, keep on running
Keep on running till the race is done

Son, I don’t have all the answers
And I don’t want to let you down
All I know is that I’m running towards this hope that I can’t see
And son, I hope you’ll follow me

Happy Father’s Day!

Previously:
Lesson One
Defining ‘manhood’

As a Christian, your personality type (and subsequent political leanings) affect how you approach your relationship with God. No real surprise there. But Donald Miller recently expounded on this concept by looking at it through the spectrum of the Enneagram.

The Enneagram defines nine different personality types (Reformer, Loyalist, Enthusiast, etc.) and how they are connected. “Personalities that need high levels of control tend to be conservative,” Miller states, “and personalities seeking higher levels of understanding but less control over others tend to be liberal.”

Conservatives are dutiful followers of God, while Liberals are affectionate followers of God. Conservatives tend to have a fists-up attitude toward the world, while liberals tend to have an arms out attitude toward the world. And what’s more is that liberals tend to have a more free, exploratory relationship with God and with others. One of the things that is comforting about being around a more liberal theologian is they don’t try to control you. You don’t feel shame or guilt when you talk to them.

Conservatives can be comforting too in the sense they have solid, black and white definitions for any number of categories about God, and for that matter, they have categories. They are also willing to take stands. People are divided up into categories, too, usually for or against any number of theological positions.

I thought this was an interesting observation, and I think there’s a lot of truth to it. Personally, I’m pretty conservative in terms of personality. On the Enneagram, I would be a solid Type Four: The Individualist: “self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal, but can also be moody and self-conscious. Withholding themselves from others due to feeling vulnerable and defective, they can also feel disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity.” OK, so that doesn’t exactly sound very endearing, but whatever. I yam what I yam.

Anyway, while I wouldn’t necessarily say that I have a “fists-up attitude toward the world”, I’d agree that I tend to be more of a dutiful Christian than an affectionate one and that I do tend to see things in black and white rather than shades of gray.

This dichotomy between liberal and conservative Christians isn’t a bad thing, though, and I don’t think one type is any better than the other. In fact, both types are necessary for the Church to function properly. If the Church were only made up of black-and-white, dutiful conservatives, for example, there would be little empathy toward non-believers, few Christians reaching out to the rest of the world and offering love and mercy and grace. If the Church were only made up of expressive, affectionate liberals, though, it would lack the disciplined fortitude that differentiates the Church from the rest of the world. Constantly seeking “relevance”, the Church would be so watered down that the Gospel would be meaningless.

Instead, God designed the Church to be made up of many different parts and many different personalities, all of which are meant to work together toward a singular purpose. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:

There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit is the source of them all. There are different kinds of service, but we serve the same Lord. God works in different ways, but it is the same God who does the work in all of us. …

The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ. Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit. …

All of you together are Christ’s body, and each you is a part of it.

Previously:
Quitting Christianity
Church dot com
Politics, the emerging church, and Donald Miller

But very early on Sunday morning the women went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. They found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. So they went in, but they didn’t find the body of the Lord Jesus. As they stood there puzzled, two men suddenly appeared to them, clothed in dazzling robes.

The women were terrified and bowed with their faces to the ground. Then the men asked, “Why are you looking among the dead for someone who is alive? He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead! Remember what he told you back in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again on the third day.”

– Luke 24:1-7

Abandon – Hero

He walked the dirty streets, famous for nothing
He said, “Come follow me,” and they came
A face like all the rest, but something was different
The Son of God would lead the way
And soon they all would say

There He goes, a hero, a Savior to the world
Here He stands with scars in His hands
With love He gave His life so we could be free
The Savior of the world

He spoke with clarity
Walked across the sea
A single word would calm the storm
His touch could heal the sick
But He was called a hypocrite
But laid behind the stone, His death was shortly mourned
He left the curtain torn

There He goes, a hero, a Savior to the world
Here He stands with scars in His hands
With love He gave His life so we could be free
The Savior of the world

He chose to take the cross
Shed tears for the lost, the broken, and the needy
Forgiving those who were and will be

The angel made it clear
He told them, “Have no fear
He’s not here, He’s not here”

There He goes, a hero, a Savior to the world
Here He stands with scars in His hands
With love He gave His life so we could be free
The Savior of the world

– Abandon, “Hero”

Happy Easter!

Previously:
It was all because of love
In the beginning…
‘His purpose in life was to go straight to the cross’
¡Viva La Revolución!

I spent this past weekend stuck in a hotel room in suburban Milwaukee. Exciting, right? I know, you’re jealous. But trust me, it wasn’t as interesting as it sounds. For one, it was raining and snowing (yes, snowing!) the whole time I was there. Second, it was Milwaukee. Unless you just have an unnatural fondness for Miller Lite or Laverne and Shirley, there’s really no reason to ever go there. I did, however, discover cheese curds, which I’m told are amazing, but to me they just tasted like, well, cheese. Which we have in Texas. Except we call it queso and dip our tortilla chips in it.

Anyway, I had gone up there to move one of our offices, which had to be done over a weekend. I finished up by mid-afternoon on Saturday, but my flight home didn’t leave till Sunday afternoon. So what do you do for 24 hours in suburban Milwaukee while it’s raining and snowing? You sit around in your hotel room trying to figure out how in the world you took such a wrong turn in life. That, and watch movies.

One of the movies I watched was “City Slickers”. Now, I’ve seen that movie probably a few dozen times over the years, but for some reason, I learned a few new things this time. For example, if you’re ever on a cattle drive, don’t bring along a coffee grinder; it immediately causes a stampede. Also, rum raisin is the perfect ice cream to follow a meal of sea bass and potatoes au gratin. And those enormous glasses you thought were so cool in 1991 look ridiculous in 2011.

But I also learned the secret of life. Really. According to Jack Palance’s Curly,  it’s one thing. “You stick to that,” Curly says, “and the rest don’t mean shit.”  But what is the “one thing”, asks Mitch. “That’s what you have to find out.”

Um, right.

I’m pretty sure when the writers got to this scene, the conversation went something like this:

Writer 1: The secret of life is… uh… uh…
Writer 2: Happiness.
Writer 1: No.
Writer 2: Financial security.
Writer 1: No.
Writer 2: The brunch buffet at the Bellagio.
Writer 1: What?! No. It’s… uh… it’s one thing.
Writer 2: What? What is it?
Writer 1: … … That’s what you have to find out.
Writer 2: That’s… Brilliant!

And then they went out for rum raisin ice cream.

But here’s the deal. That philosophy, that idea that the secret of life is some random concept that everyone has to figure out for himself, isn’t just some corny movie line, it’s what a lot of people tend to believe. It’s this politically correct notion of coexistence and tolerance, a refusal to acknowledge any absolutes or truths. You can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, gay, straight, whatever. Whatever you wanna be. Whatever your “one thing” is. Just don’t try to push your one thing on me.

Even though that’s a load of crap.

The one thing, the only one thing, is Jesus. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

That’s it. That’s all you need to know.

That truth has hit me especially hard this week. If you haven’t noticed (which you haven’t since you don’t actually read this blog), I haven’t been especially active on the blog lately. That’s due to a number of factors but mostly just because I’ve been busy with other stuff. And I’m not gonna apologize about that. Although I want people to read what I write (who doesn’t?), I don’t live and die by Google Analytics. If people read it, then that’s great. If they don’t, I don’t really care. Because honestly, I’m not writing this for them.

Christian band The Classic Crime puts it this way in “A Perfect Voice”:

I may not sing your favorite songs, but I don’t sing for you
‘Cause if I did, I would have been gone long ago

I’ve run across a lot of well-meaning Christians on Twitter that I’ve ultimately unfollowed because they only seem to care about promoting their blogs or their books. They tweet their latest blog post several times a day and retweet every compliment they get so everyone knows just how awesome they are. And these are Christians. Who should know better. Who should be putting Jesus ahead of their own shameless self-promotion.

Not that I don’t promote myself. I do, of course. I mean, I’ve got social media links beneath every post and my Twitter and Flickr streams in the right-hand column. It would be hypocritical of me to condemn by brothers and sisters for doing the same thing I do. Although I’ve never really been comfortable promoting my blog on Twitter and do so very rarely.

But I’m the first to admit that I often lose sight of that “one thing”, the only thing that truly matters. I’m the first to admit just how selfish and shallow and egotistical I can be and how wrong that is.

What better time to realize that than on Good Friday, the day in which the Son of God — in which God Himself — willingly gave up His life in place of mine. Who knew how stupid and lazy and self-centered I really am but who loved me anyway and literally put Himself through Hell so that I wouldn’t have to. Because of God’s sacrifice 2,000 years ago, I’m free today. Political correctness can’t save me. Judaism, Islam, and atheism can’t save me. Nothing else can save me. But God’s grace can.

And that’s the only thing that’s truly important. That one thing. That one single amazing truth. And that should be why I do everything I do.

Because the rest don’t mean shit.

Previously:
Look for the search lights
Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy
The ransom has been paid
Who are you following?