Advent Week 1: Mark 1:1-15

This week begins the season of advent, a time where we recognize the first coming of Jesus and a time where we anticipate His coming return. During this season, I will look at each one of the gospels and how they each anticipate the coming of Christ. To begin with,  I will look at the first gospel that was written within our scriptures, The Gospel of Mark.

Some of you are probably wondering why I am starting with Mark, some of you probably have no clue as to why beginning here may seem problematic. Well, just so everyone is on the same page, there is no Christmas story in the book of Mark. Which has to lead one to wonder, why would Mark leave this part of the story out? How could Mark not mention sweet baby Jesus, the three kings, the shepherds, the angel, the manger, the livestock, the proclamation of the Christ? Well, I think Mark does include the proclamation of the coming of the Christ (which to me is the important part of the story), just not from the angel to Mary, but rather from a prophet to the the multitudes.

Mark's book begins with a crazy man who eats locusts, wears camel hair, and lives in the wilderness. that's right, the wilderness, but that hardly seems noteworthy does it? Ahh but it is. See the wilderness was a place where one was unprotected from both earthly dangers such as thieves and other bandits, as well as unearthly dangers such as spirits. The fact that this crazy prophet could survive a ministry out there was a testament to his authority. But there is more to the wilderness aspect of Mark's gospel, see the  people were coming out to the wilderness in droves to see John the Baptist. This too is noteworthy. For in doing so they were looking away from the center of their world and out to the peripherals. To understand this, we must understand that in John's day, the whole of society was focused on center of the nearest major city. For these people that would have been Jerusalem. And at the center of this city would have been the temple, along with the economic and political centers. So obviously, something as important as the announcement of the Christ would come from here, right? 

Not here, not in this situation. Here the people had to turn outward, to the wilderness, where only bad things could happen, where only the degraded and unclean lived. This is where the masses would have to turn to hear about the coming of the Christ. The proclamation would not be issued by the priests, the rich, or the ruler. Rather by some wild man, who was able to see the vision of God, who was able to recognize that God had come to earth as a man, and who knew his place in relation to the Messiah.

So what does this say to us during the season of advent. Maybe the book of Mark is a reminder, maybe Mark is telling us that Christ can be found in the most unlikely of places. Maybe he is reminding us that we have to travel away from the normal places that we love and cherish to witness the Christ. Maybe we have to turn away from things that seem important to see Jesus rather than try to fit Jesus into these things at first. Maybe the appropriate way to wait for Jesus is to turn away from politics, turn away from consumerism, and even turn away from what an organized religion has taught us, in order to experience Christ in His fullness. But not for good.For just like the multitudes in Mark had to turn back to the city, so we too will have to play a role in our society and our churches, but when we return we will have seen and experienced Jesus fully, and maybe with Jesus' help, we can transform these places, and the way we look and do politics, economics, and yes even religion. 

So during this week of advent, maybe it is time to step out of your comfort zone and examine how Jesus has come into our lives, and as a result of this how we can prepare the way for Christ to do his work in the centers of our society, as opposed to the center of our society telling us how we ought to function. While at the same time anticipating a new Heaven and earth upon his return.

Heresy perhaps, but worth thinking about...

While reading "Against Celsus" by Origen, I came across Origen questioning: Why should one teach against a person being transformed to a good person even if he can not come up with any rationale for doing so? (Rough paraphrase I know, but check out Book One chapter 9.) While pondering this thought, I then asked myself, is this how Christ Followers should think of others who find ways of transforming themselves into better people, even if their way does not involve giving credit to Christ. Unfortunately I never came to a firm conclusion, but what I came up with was this.....

If all good things come from God, then if man finds a system of belief that teaches him to DO good that is apart from the religion of Christianity, is that ok? Will God honor the man's commitment to such a belief? For the Bible states that "every perfect gift comes down from heaven" (James 1:17), and is not wisdom a gift? It was a gift to King Solomon as we learn in 1st Kings, therefore we must conclude that wisdom is  most definitely a gift that comes from God. And Scripture teaches us that only God is good. Thus one can conclude two things: First is that God as a good personal entity, would only impart good wisdom to humanity, and second that good and perfect wisdom can only come from God, for only God can only know what good is seeing as He is the only good being in all of existence.

Therefore a Christian must wrestle with the fact of how do ungodly/pagan people do good? How do they come up with teachings that promote good? How does someone like Ghandi teach the same non-violence and love for others that Jesus taught during his time on earth? I find such a thought highly perplexing, maybe it means that God is working in ways that we could never imagine, maybe He is reminding us that not everyone who calls Jesus Lord will be saved, but rather those who do the Father's will. And sometimes this will of His is done by those who do not call Jesus Lord. Maybe this should humble those who claim to follow Christ, maybe being a follower of Jesus is more than saying the "right" prayer, or calling someone Lord without believing it. Maybe its about understanding that there is a higher power who shows us grace, and that we in turn are to show grace to others in return (Matthew 18-23-35).

So what happen to those who unknowingly serve Christ as in Matthew 25, are they condemned to Hell for all of eternity? Or does grace abound? Traditional teaching/interpretation of the Bible tells me tells me that the first scenario is what occurs, however the Words of Christ seem to tell a different story in the gospels. Maybe it is possible to serve someone/thing else while at the same time you feel you are serving Christ, and maybe the reverse is true also.

To end I must say I neither have the answer to the above questions above, nor do I believe that I will ever have the answers until the end of days. But what I do know is that Christ blood was shed for sinners, the question then becomes this: When it comes to being covered in the atoning blood, is it the words that matter, or the actions that matter, or somehow both?

Money, Greed, and God review: Part Three

                

                Sorry I have not posted in a while. But I have been spending quite a few hours helping my dad start a bread distributorship. Hopefully I will be able to post more regularly. Here is the review for Richards’ second chapter of Money, Greed, and God.

Richards’ refreshingly starts his chapter by pointing out the fact that if one were to read the Bible straight through, that the person would realize that caring for the poor is essential to the Biblical message given to humanity by God. Richard’s backs up his claim with numerous passages from both the Old and New Testaments. He then goes on to claim that in the end, one’s intentions won’t matter but whether or not one is successful in helping the needy. Richards then goes on to claim that many of the things we do, both as a nation and individuals, to help the poor are actually unsuccessful. As a result our failed efforts, as individuals and as a nation, are meaningless when it comes to our spiritual relationship both with God and with others. Richards then accuses those who are willing but incapable or helping as acting out so that they will feel good about themselves. To end the introduction section, Richards then tackles the issues that he believes actually hinder than help the poor, such as: the living wage, fair trade, foreign aid, and government run health care.

                To end the chapter, Richards’ goes on to say that it is not the government’s job to provide assistance to the poor. Rather it is the job of the church, the family, and the neighbor to help those who are needy. He then goes on to say that the Federal Government cannot afford to help out the needy. To do so he points to the fact that government spending has gone from 20 dollars a person in 1789 to 10,000 dollars a person in 2007 (figures adjusted for inflation). He then writes in a way that seems to shoulder the $9,980 dollar difference on welfare policies.

                I have some issues with Richards’ viewpoints in this chapter concerning the economic policies which he chose to look at. In fact, I could possibly write a whole chapter of a book on them. However to make things short, I am going to look at just one of them briefly, the Living Wage. In this chapter Richards’ completely trashes the idea of a minimum wage. Now, I am in agreement that the minimum wage laws are ineffective. However, the ineffectiveness does not stem with the minimum wage law itself but in reality the issue stems with those who are forced to pay the inflated wage. What the minimum wage law attempts to do is the force employers to pay a higher percentage of profits that they receive from their goods and/or services. However, this is not the case, rather than having to pay a higher percentage, business charge more for their products to cover the difference, thus making the value of the dollar less. Yet, it is interesting that Richards’ attacks the government as being at fault for causing the inflation. He puts no fault on those who already have plenty who continue to help cause inflation because they are unwilling to share more of the wealth that a company makes with the workers who help make the company what it is.

To me it is as if Richards’ is standing around, watching a guy getting punched in the stomach repeatedly which results in the guy having a stomach ache. Afterwards it is as if Richards sees another guy, who had no idea what initially happened, giving the guy some Pepto Bismol for his stomach ache. After viewing this all it seems as if Richards’ chastises the person doing something pointless rather than trying to stop the other person who is actually causing the problem by punching the guy in the stomach in the first place. In short YES! Setting a minimal wage is pointless, but it is only pointless because those who already have more than enough to live well, and sometimes more who fail part with some of their wealth in order that other people who make the company successful can have enough money for essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and medical care. In other word’s Richards’ is sending out a rallying cry against the faulty effect rather than the cause. But if we eliminate the cause, then we eliminate the effect at the same time.

I feel like Richards is fighting the wrong issue here. Maybe instead of rallying against the government, he should be rallying against those who feel they need to make grossly more than much of the rest of the world and against corporations that fail to pay enough money to their employees to live above the poverty level. Now, I am sure he would say that those at the top deserve more than those at the bottom, and I would agree with him. But the questions we ought to ask is this, how much more do they deserve, and how little do the people at the bottom deserve.

                As for his feelings that the role of the government is not to help the needy, I have MAJOR issues with Richards’ thinking. Richards’ seems to say to shoulder the burden of helping the needy on the church and family only. However, if this was possible, why are where we are today? I believe that if the church and family were capable of shouldering the needs of everyone that they would have done so by now. Now this is not to say that the church and family does not try to help out the needy, but rather that they are unable to do so and that no matter how hard they try, to feel that they can get rid of all of society’s ills is unrealistic, or to use Richards’ language, “it isn’t prudent.”

                Finally, my last issue is how Richards’ uses the stat that we are spending about $9,980 more than we were in the late eighteenth century as a reason to completely annihilate welfare. It’s an unfair argument, because there are other factors that contribute to the high rate of expenditures. Things like military budgets, which currently is the largest piece of the pie in our national budget. Now, I am sure we could lower military expenditures, but let’s be honest; the cost of military technology was much lower in 1789 than it was in 2007. I am sure that a mini ball and a rifle cost much less than an assault rifle and armor piercing bullets. I am sure a cannon and cannon ball cost much less than a patriot missile or a smart bomb which are loaded with technological advances that our patriots in 1789 could not have even dreamed of. Or we could look to the pay that our political leaders receive today as compared to 1789. In 1789, there was no salary being paid to the president as opposed to $400,000 a year today. Not to mention that during the early years of the presidency, all the extra expenditures came out of the president’s personal pocket and wasn’t the tax payers burden.  The fact is, that there are many reasons why the government needs more money today than it did over 200 years ago, but to blame welfare programs as being the main reason is far from truthful.

In the end, I guess my problem is this, if Richards’ knows that God is concerned for the poor in the Biblical witness, why is he so willing to cut programs that deal with helping the poor, and turn a blind eye to the other areas where we spend money extravagantly?