So We Must Remember!

So We Must Remember!

By Jacob Hansen

Memorial Day 2013 

What is this thing that God has blessed?

We call it our nation, our home, and our place of rest.
But what has birthed it, refined it, preserved it?

Or does anything ring true in the Red, White and Blue?

 Today we remember the many gone before

Uncles, Aunts, Great Fathers and Mothers

 Children, parents, sisters and brothers.
But how do we remember the Reddest Blood spilled, 

Or the sacrifice of those who were felled.

Few recall the Pure Price of True Freedom, 

.And fewer today know exactly what has Freed them.

So We Must Remember!

We no longer teach "Honor Thy Father and Mother," 

When it comes to our fellow man we try not to bother.
But it is Honor and Courage that has made this nation great, 

To forget this erases the Blue from under 50 States.

And though the Stars are harder to forget. 

Alaska and Montana sometimes, but surely not the rest.

We forget the Reddest Blood of those before, 

The Purest White Freedom which they bought
And the Bluest Honor and Courage they bore, 

To bring One out of Many they sought,

You might as well fly a flag without the Red,
without the White, and without the Blue.
But then our 50 states would separate, and so would I, and so would you.

So We Must Remember!

The Homo-Sexual Christian Possibility (?)

Today's post is short and sweet. 

I thought about writing, but I think Ravi Answers the question pretty thoroughly. 

What are your thoughts?

   

Good World, Bad World?

I saw a Facebook post with a link to a recent blog about Red Skins Quarterback, Kirk Cousins. It contains a quote by Cousins about his reaction to teammate John McDonnell who has announced he is openly gay. I encourage you to check out the blog before reading my response:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/51136/kirk-cousins-on-the-gay-teammate-question

I like what Cousins said, but there are a number of things about Dan Graziano's blog that doesn't amount to much sense.

1st) Using Cousins thoughts as a spring board, Graziano suggests that, "human beings" should not be, "the ones who decide what's the right way and the wrong way for people to live their lives." I didn't detect any of that in Cousins remarks, but let's unpack Graziano's statement.

How is society supposed to hold itself together if "human beings" refuse to set guidelines about what is right and wrong? What is to keep society from melting down into a chaotic moral system where your "right" is my "wrong" and my "wrong" is your "right?" I don't see how Graziano can make this statement ultimately because of what he says at the end of his article.

2nd) Grazino concludes his ideas about a "good" moral society by stating, "You don't have to have been raised on the New Testament to think that'd be a pretty nice world in which to live."

But how does he justify his "good world" from what he believes is a "bad world?" He can't, because he is assuming that it is self evident. But it is only self evident, because our nation was born and raised on the New Testament. 

John Adams said this,  

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our Constitution only works for a moral and religious people. If society breaks down, and is breaking down, into one where the people refuse to call out what is Right and Wrong, then the Constitution is no longer relevant.

Why is morality necessary for Constitutional relevance? Because, the Constitution was written under the assumption that religious and moral people would exist to carry on the dream of a society which affirms that, "All people are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Those words were written by those who not only read the New Testament, but agreed that it contained words to live by. It is from this understanding that the Constitution was born. That document still lives only because the moral and religious still remain!

If one takes out the New Testament, then one will misunderstand the Constitution, thereby tampering with the very foundations upon which the United States of America stands. Graziano only knows what a "good world" is because of how the New Testament has shaped it. He is blind to the fact that without it, this nation would have never survived past it's first 100 years of existence.

All this is to say that I think Cousins is doing a great job! Graziano is just confused as to why that is good!

What is THE Gospel?

I received this email today from my father-in-law today:

--

Here’s a question for you.  What is the gospel?  Answer that first, and then go to Mk. 1:14-15.

Here’s something else I found.  Matt. 3:1-2 and Matt. 4:17.  Interesting, huh?
--

I looked up the verses and noticed that the "gospel" seemed to refer to coming of God's Kingdom on Earth. But instead of rehashing all of my thoughts, I'll just share with you my response.

-- My Response --

In the Greek, the word "Gospel" is commonly defined as a verb (Preaching the Good News) or noun (The Good News). Typically we as Christians equate the "Gospel" as the general story of Christ's death and resurrection, but as you have pointed out that isn't the whole of "The Gospel," though it is certainly good news in part. Within the contexts of the passages which you cited above, "The Good News" for the Jews would certainly have been that the Kingdom of Heaven was drawing near. For them it might have meant that Israel's line of David was being restored ultimately throwing off the Roman Empire's grip over them. But regardless of how they might have understood it, John's Baptism was preparing them for the establishment of God's Kingdom through Christ, and this is very Good News indeed.

So "What is the Gospel?" I think it is that, through Jesus Christ, God's Kingdom is nearer to us now than ever before. It is so close that just through believing in Christ's resurrection, we not only have access to, but also complete citizenship in that Kingdom! This is gospel: "good news!" But neither does it stop there, because God's Kingdom is still expanding through evangelism and will itself endure forever (See Daniel 2:44). Then there is the return of Jesus Christ which is also part of the "good news," though it doesn't stop there either. The wedding feast of the Lamb as well as the New Heavens and New Earth we look forward to as well.

The Kingdom of Heaven is near, we all have the opportunity of becoming its citizens, and his Kingdom will endure forever and ever! Amen! This is real Gospel!

--

I am not claiming that is "The Gospel" and therefore all encompassing of "The Good News" that our Christian Faith professes. It suffices to say, then, that "Gospel" is a term we use for "good news" as it pertains to God's plan for his people. Regardless of how painful that plan might turn out to be, it will always work for "the good of those who love Him and are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).

Reflections from Hearing Ravi Zacharias

Through the crowd of people cycling between information booths, sipping punch, and talking amongst themselves, I saw with my own eyes the man who has always served as a great inspiration to me. I received the email inviting me to the Minnesota Family Counsel's 30th Anniversary Dinner last month. The price of the dinner was enough for me to reach for the delete button, until I notice the name keynote speaker. My parents often listened to his weekly broadcast on Sunday mornings after church and I remember enjoying listening to him since I was little. With a story like his, it is no wonder he considered the greatest Christian apologist of our time. For the very first time, my eyes witnessed the beaming, genuine, welcoming smile of Ravi Zacharias.

It would take me hours to try and express the way his challenging stories, parables, and main points moved and challenged me, but there are a few thoughts that I will ponder for many days to come. As a minister, a concerned citizen, and a worker in God's Kingdom, it can be difficult to live in each of those spheres without forgetting the other. Many would say that we are of God's Kingdom, and therefore it gives us an excuse to not be involved in civil government structures. We can also get so involved in the civil structures, that we start to forget that we are citizens of another kingdom. Zacharias inspires me to keep working in all three spheres, because the work God has for me naturally fits in all three.

The Church must be involved in the political process, but if it does so without reaching out to the people of culture it will accomplish little. Look for example at the fight to preserve traditional marriage, to preserve the life of the unborn, or to protect our children from the dangers that come with searching the internet. The cause may be a righteous one, but if there is no contact with the lost among the opposition, it will become little more than a cultural tug-of-war based on who has the majority in Congress.

I am not saying that these causes are futile, or that the Church needs to get out of politics. In fact I would encourage you to vote and stay in contact with your elected officials. This,  I believe is our civil duty. But, in order to change this culture, we should begin by venturing out of the walls of our churches and begin to gracefully and lovingly reach to our neighbors regardless of what side of the aisle they lean. We need to invite people into our homes regardless of their view on human sexuality. There is a God in Heaven who does not wish that co-worker of yours, who constantly teases you for your faith, to be cast from his presence.

What are your thoughts? Are we going to stand aside and expect civil structures to do the work of the Church? Or are we going to step in, as workers of another kingdom, as concerned citizens, and effective ministers to do the work of Jesus in our time? 

From the Eyes and Ears of a Pharisee

"How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" He spoke for all of us. My stomach was empty, and it constantly let me know, but that is the way of it. I am supposed to fast with no questions asked. Yet, this teacher, this Yeshua, who seemingly possesses an incredibly thorough understanding of our laws and customs, never seems to fast. Not to mention, his followers never seem to fast either.

"How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is still with them," Yeshua answered, "The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, then they will fast." Before I had time to ponder what he meant by this, he kept going!

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse." What did that have to do with fasting?

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

I left his talk mulling over those words. So strange and yet, for some reason, so vexingly profound!  As a teacher of the Law, this shouldn't be hard for me to understand. It's such a simple question, "Why don't you fast?" And yet he never seems to address the subject at hand.





Fasting, patches, wineskins... I do not understand. Perhaps what the others are saying is true. This is a madman who is only seeking to confuse and agitate teachers of the Law while creating his own following. Yet, I can't get his strange teaching out of my mind! Fasting... patches... wineskins... Fasting... patches... winesk-

Wait... what if instead of looking at this solely from my understanding of those things, I were to turn my understanding of fasting. Yeshua was referring to fasting in the first place, right? Perhaps there is more to his words. I suppose it is time to ask myself, "what is fasting?"

I suppose it is one way of cleansing myself from all that is unclean. It is a form of purification, but we also fast in mourning to remind ourselves of the frailty of flesh. But are these the real reason for my fast? No, I fast because it is expected of me. I feel no more cleansed from my fast than I expect a pig would feel if it stopped eating for 40 days. I feel no sense of cleansing... no sense of...

Is that it? Am I the old wineskin? Am I the patch which refuses to shrink? Am I expecting to be preserved by my fast only to find that I am still decaying? If yes, then why? Am I not a pharisee; a teacher of the law, one chosen for the task of mediating The LORD's mercy on his people, Israel? Yet I feel... No I know, that I am nothing but an old, crusty, skin which no amount of ritual can keep from bursting when the cleansing wine of my fast pours right though me. I am not preserved, and neither is the meaning behind my fast. It is nothing. But should it not be something?

How then do I become like a new wineskin? How do I become like a cloth suitable to repair the garment? Perhaps at my next encounter with Yeshua, I shall ask him.

-From the Eyes of a Pharisee

Religion: What is it really?

   Is Religion out, and Relationships in?

    There is a growing perception, especially among my generation, that religion is bad and that it is ruining the message of the Gospel. Though I sympathize with my generation, I find myself disagreeing with them on a few levels. I fear that in their zeal to reach the culture of the "now," they have forgotten to remember the importance of history, and therefore may make an equal number of mistakes if they are not careful.

     This pull away from religion is based on an assumption that "Christian Religion" has done nothing but start wars, forget the poor, and seek to become prosperous among "capitalist republicans." They have a lot to say on the ways religion has failed, but also disregard the many ways it has succeeded. This is where the term, "it's not a religion, it's a relationship," might come from as well as some popular Youtube channels with titles like, "Why I hate religion, but love Jesus."  but I do not believe these terms are an all inclusive reflection of Christ's ministry.

     If Jesus came to preach that "it is not about the law, it is about relationships," then why did he say, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17). Neither do we as Christians on either side of the spectrum seek to throw out the Old Testament to champion the New. Therefore, I think the same principle should be applied to today. We do not burn the Old Testament just because the pharisees abused it, so also we should not throw out religion because it has suffered abuse over time. However, I would not go so far and say that Jesus was not about relationships, because he certainly was, but I would like to pen the term, "This is a Religion of Relationships."

    So what must be done? I call on the pastors of my generation to learn from the mistakes of previous generations while at the same time learning from their successes. It is actually rather funny that we tend glorify the Church of Acts as the ultimate goal for today, but do we really want to turn back 2000 years of history and start over? This is a new day calling for a new Church, but it must be a church built upon the foundation of those who got it right. Only then can we hope to reach our culture where they stand. The alternative, digging a new foundation, may only result in years of relearning all that which has already been learned. I fear those who try are wasting their time.

    Thoughts from the reading of Deep Church by Belcher