A stone from memory lane: Christmas in New York

The last post I wrote before my long sabbatical from the blog focused on some discoveries I was making at the time about my time at boarding school in New York City. At that time, my discoveries were more about the pain I felt being away from home for the four years I was at school there. Funny thing about stories: when treated right, when reframed (with help) in a larger context that I only could have built over the next few years, they tend to be able to age like fine wine. As it stands (and there are other contextual pieces that I won't get into in this post), I now have fonder memories of my time in New York than I do of high school, and even of my years in Minnesota. It doesn't necessarily mean that my time in New York was better than my time in Minnesota (if anything, I still kind of hold the opposite!), but, time can heal memories when those memories are propped up with the proper scaffolding for repair and maintenance.

I'm sure that when I was 11, 12, 13, and 14 years of age, more than anything I wanted was to be home for Christmas. I don't recall what my thoughts were when I realized that we school kids were going to have to stay at school until 1pm Christmas Day. Because our primary job was being boy sopranos in a church choir (with adult men singing the alto (or countertenor), tenor, and bass parts), singing the services on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day (the morning, anyway) was part of the program.

That said, reflecting back, I now look back on it with fondness. The entire month of December was chock full of excellent music that we got to partake in: George Friderich Handel's Messiah, Benjamin Britten's Ceremony of Carols, Marc-Antoine Charpentier's Mass (I forget which one now) for Christmas Eve, and more. I say all this now, given that this year one of the biggest pieces of Christmas that I'm connecting with more than ever is the music (like I mentioned in my last post).

But there were other things. Two or three days before Christmas, our headmaster (may he rest in peace) would dress up as "Santa GR-A" and give everyone presents as we gathered by the big tree in the dormitory section of the school. On Christmas Eve, he would lead us down Fifth Avenue to the church (not our normal route; also, it was a seven-block walk between the school and the church). It was quite a sight, given that Fifth Avenue was where all the shops were; unlike most other streets in the area, on this one every tree and light and store window was decked out with Christmas lights and other Christmas decorations. And each year we students participated in a "Secret Santa" event where we would have a day set aside to shop for whichever classmate we each were designated to get a gift for, usually about two weeks before Christmas. Everyone would then open their presents -- from their "Secret Santa" and from "Santa GR-A" -- two or three days before Christmas, whenever he was scheduled to appear.

Plus, it was Christmas in New York City. I neglected to mention that both our school and our church were in midtown Manhattan -- the part of the city that I imagine most non-New Yorkers think of when they think of New York: the shops on Fifth Avenue, the big tree at Rockefeller Center, and the famous ice skating rinks at both the Rockefeller Center and Central Park. There have been numerous Christmas-themed films that have been set in Manhattan. I can definitively say, based on having experienced the entire Christmas season there for four years, that the magic that the movies were portraying wasn't hyperbole.

Even though it wasn't "home," the school did its part, and then some, to make magic for us choirboys whose call was to make magic for countless others throughout the school year. It was magical, indeed. I'm grateful for it, and at this point chuckle at how I am now back to a version of that life, performing music all month long, all the way up through Christmas Eve. Even though my rejection of the "Santa" propaganda is to a deeper level than ever before, it seems some of the magic yet remains. On this day, I'll chalk it up to the enduring power of Jesus Messiah. I'll receive that.

The Christmas sermon, part 3: disowning the "Santa" Christmas in my heart

Ten years ago I blogged, in two posts, some thoughts about Christmas, based on reading and learning about the fact that Jesus' birthday is not December 25th. If you're curious, you can find each post here and here.

What prompted me to write this time is a reaction I had on the day after Thanksgiving, when at work (I play piano in nursing homes) one of the singers I work with at this job did a set that included many  Christmas songs, primarily the secular ones that sing about Santa Claus, Rudolph the Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, etc. It was the first time I'd done any of them in a year, so they were fresh to me that day.

My reaction was: "I don't believe in this stuff anymore."

Whoa.

A lot has happened in my life over the last ten years. I moved back to Chicago, started joining a church permanently for the first time in about seven years, worked three long-term jobs, started my own business (in a sense), played in about five different bands, participated or led in at least three different ministries, got baptized... I even had a girlfriend for the first time ever.

Even though ten years ago I had begun developing new opinions about Christmas, I still believed in both the "Jesus" Christmas and the "Santa" Christmas. A year and a half ago, however, I met someone that I now see God used to point out the reality that my faith was dying, and that same someone breathed life back into my faith. We had many, many conversations that involved us building up one another, not only in faith but also in life. Primarily what I got out of it was the idea of a God whose storehouses were full of riches, and that His desire is to bless us.

[To clarify: God blessing us is not the endgame, and believing that it is is dangerous. But what I did not know then was that to believe the opposite -- a God who only was concerned with us "behaving well enough" and would only consider rewarding us if maaaaybe we were "obedient enough" was also toxic and wrong teaching.]

Even though this person and I haven't spoken in a while, I still hear similar messages, shared in different ways, in my circles today. But in the process, as well as a few other faith/growth risks I've been taking the last several months, these truths have not only awoken my connection with Jesus in ways that were not present a year and a half ago, but it has also sharpened how I see truth vs what isn't true.

Don't get me wrong: I get why many American Christians (and believers of many other nations) love Santa Claus. Among many of the reasons: it's a great way for parents to know what their kids want for Christmas; it's a great money-making season for retailers; it's a great seasonal job-creator for store employees, including people to play the role of Santa Claus at malls; and above all, it is magical. The children's story "The Polar Express" left such an impact that, even though I'd forgotten all about the book by the time I had graduated from college, when I heard the kindergarten teacher read the story to her students the year I was serving with AmeriCorps, I found myself transported back to kindergarten myself. And on a more personal level, in the first half of my childhood, Christmases at home still had some magic: we did a tree, did the presents, the midnight mass at church, even Christmas lunch and Christmas dinner. Deep into adulthood, even though I understood that it was really about Jesus, Santa's role still held a special place in my heart.

Sometime in the week following that day at work when I decided I didn't believe the "Santa" Christmas garbage anymore, I came across a Facebook post a contact of mine had written. She recently asked her 2(?)-year-old daughter if she knew who it was when she showed her a picture of Santa Claus. Her daughter had no clue. My contact went on to comment that because of it, her parenting thus far was a success. I agree with her. She went on to say that there is no benefit in lying to our children about some imaginary character that, as a world, we perpetuate. In fact, not only that there is no benefit, but that the lie has damaged people emotionally and spiritually. That right there was confirmation as to my aforementioned gut response to songs like "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," among others.

More recently, I listened in on a conversation between another coworker and a staff supervisor (neither of whom are believers) at one of the nursing homes I perform at, regarding being more inclusive of all the holidays at this time of year. As I sat in listening, it dawned on me that if our culture holds that "Christmas" is more about Santa (and money, and family, etc) than about Jesus, then there's no point not to be more inclusive and allow Hanukkah and Kwanzaa to be equally represented. If this is the case, then the purported war on "Christmas" that I hear about isn't really a "war", because the "Santa" Christmas is no better and no more true than the other holidays. (In fact, Hanukkah, for its part, is actually more true than the "Santa" Christmas.)

(Note: I do believe at least somewhat that there is a war on the "Jesus" Christmas, but that's for another day.)

I'm opining. A lot, actually. But why?

1.) It's a sign that God really has changed me a lot in the last ten years. I've been going to the same church for almost ten years now. January 17, 2020 will mark the anniversary. It's also a needed reminder, especially in the current season I'm in that has been full of bad days, in light of numerous big and very real life challenges in front of me. On my worst days, I don't see what God has been doing in my life. So this helps.

2.) Unlike a decade ago, when my head-thoughts and opinions on Christmas did shift, my heart-thoughts on Christmas had not. I've loved and still love commemorating Jesus's birth through music and through worship. I've been in the worship band at my church every Christmas Eve for the last, oh, six or seven years now. I'm available; I do it. And more and more, I'm connecting with the music in ways that I don't think I've connected with before. "O Holy Night," which I did not grow up hearing let alone singing, has currently become my favorite song. But, until the last year, deep down I still yearned for the "Santa" Christmas, the family events, the warmth, and above all, the magic. Finally that's shifted.

3.) I'm settling into what Christmas is now: it's a month of Christmas music (which I'm loving); it's volunteer work to perform Jesus'-birth-themed worship songs (including traditional Christmas songs as well as non-traditional songs); it's lunch with my dad (and occasionally, another friend or so) at our traditional restaurant; and it's two days off from work. A very far cry from the magic that I've missed but now moving on from. Still beautiful, nonetheless.

Finally, I do want to take the opportunity to share one story, also from ten years ago:

Ten years ago marked my last gasp at an independent adult life in the state of Minnesota. I had gone to college there. I found a job and an apartment after graduating. (Granted, both processes were very easy, as I had early offers in each case, and accepted almost immediately.) But, a year later, I was out of work, and it was 2009. The job market was terrible. And December of that year was the fourth and final month that my savings had kept me afloat while looking for work.

I really didn't want to return to Chicago. But, it happened. The other thing though was, if I was going to do so, I wanted to do it by Christmas, so I could be back with my family in time. Mid-month, after my last attempt at landing a job fell through, and after my roommate officially moved out (I helped him pack up his furniture in a trailer in zero-degree weather for two days), I had made my decision. I just needed to pack up and get a trailer and drive home in about a week.

But I had been beaten down by how the previous four months had gone. And I didn't have Jesus. At least not in the way I do now. I had no willpower to get myself together to pack everything up, let alone in less than a week. My dad picked up on that and drove up to help me. But the day he came up, December 23rd, a massive snowstorm hit Minnesota. And his car developed an issue that needed to be repaired by a mechanic. As a result, not only was I going to have to return to Chicago, but I was also going to be stuck in Minnesota for Christmas.

It wasn't until a few years later that it dawned on me: the Holy Spirit used this -- me being stuck in Minnesota for Christmas -- as an opportunity for me to really say goodbye to Minnesota. My dad and I were treated to dinner with my then-landlord and his wife on Christmas Day. The night before, we checked out the local Episcopal church that I occasionally visited, and got to enjoy a nice, small, Christmas Eve service. I got to say goodbye to the senior pastor there. And that evening, it was snowing, to the point that even though it was like 10pm, it might well have been dusk and not night. (I'm kind of surprised I never took a picture of the town while walking into the church!)

I share this story, because, in a way, I feel like I'm there now, ten years later. It's much too soon to share about it; the 2019 (into 2020) story is still being written. But I've been getting flooded with all sorts of things God is pointing out and hinting. And the magic surrounding Santa Claus and "The Polar Express" cannot match any of it.

On Identity, Part 1: On Hold

A few weeks ago, I felt inspired to write another topical series of posts, centered around a pervasive topic I see and hear in conversations around me and online. Buoyed from the response I got from not only blogging about my thoughts on the Bible being a history book, but also posting it on Facebook, I set about this next series.

Then life got busy.

My life has been rather busy for a while, but it's gotten even busier.

And so, this project is now on hold.

December has tended to be a busier month for me a professional performing musician. Which is good for the bank account. But less good if my goal was to blog, and also post on topics I'm passionate about.

I've been feeling inspired to share some shifts in my thinking about Christmas, so when I have spare time, I'll start sketching about that, and then post it later this month sometime.

On Identity, Prologue: Introducing A Topic So Pervasive That Challenging Any Part Of It Likely Will Trigger Angry Responses

I'll cut to the chase: I'm a loyalist.

So.... what does that mean, exactly?

Part of my returning to the blog this year and reshaping my blogging picture includes reposting old posts from previous eras of my life. After some thought, I recently added four posts regarding my political perspective journey, with the fourth one culminating with some convictions I've had from the beginning.

For reference, here are the links to the four posts, in chronological order:

April 18, 2005: The night I officially became a liberal

June 14, 2009: The night I officially became a conservative

November 3, 2010: The night I officially became a moderate

September 3, 2012: Re: politics: underneath, I've always been this way

I imagine that the casual reader just glancing at those four headlines might think I'm either a lunatic or a flip-flopper. While I don't think I'm a lunatic, I could see why one might think I'm a flip-flopper. After all, I have flip-flopped my perspective on various topics from time to time. Specifically, I think both capitalism and socialism have merits. I also have things I don't like about either economic system. That said, I'm not as market-inclined as many other people are. I don't know how stocks work, and I'm not sure I care all that much. So, regarding economics, I simply pray and wait, and I don't opine on this. (At least not any more than I just did.)

There is also something to be said for feeling pressure to care about topics I don't care about. For example, I also don't particularly care about the topic of drugs, specifically around legalization or criminalization. The simple reason is that I don't use drugs. I've never used, and I don't ever plan to use. I have concerns about use of drugs in general in that they have addictive qualities, many of which tend to be destructive. To wit: the younger brother of a classmate of mine died of a heroin overdose a couple years ago. He was only 26. I resonate with that. But with the topic of, say, marijuana, I've heard arguments on both sides: 1.) marijuana is a drug and therefore should be illegal. 2.) marijuana is no more destructive than alcohol is, and alcohol is lawful for a consumption base of mature age. As far as I'm concerned, both arguments sound valid to me, and I'm in no rush to cast my own judgment. Not yet, anyway.

There are of course many other topics that I feel similar about. I'm not going to rush to judgment on any of those things, either. A few things I learned from my young-adult days: 1.) I chose to develop opinions on all sorts of topics, not because I particularly cared about them (although some things I did care and still do care about); 2.) when I did so, I found myself really angry any time politics or general news came up; 3.) in my anger and in my fear, I developed an "us" vs "them" mindset regarding the people around me that I now realize robbed me of the opportunity to get to know more of them, to make more friends (and even to date a few people that I think may have been interested in me...); 4.) I did all these things because I wanted to belong (i.e. "fit in") with certain select groups of people that at one point were in my life when I was in an especially rough season.

I look at some of these things I decided to form opinions about, and learned that I was also forming an identity in the process. The truth is, what one thinks and what one believes is a key part of one's identity. It is off this point that I now introduce a new topic series, one on a topic so pervasive that challenging any part of what people consider their identity will likely trigger angry responses.

I get it: identities are personal. Let's first admit the obvious: my identity is personal to me. Your identity is personal to you. His or her identity is personal to him or her. And so on.

I imagine the next question then goes like this: why, then? Why dare challenge people on what they think their identity is? Why challenge them with what you think their identity should be? They've been through enough. Let them be. Let them do what they want.

Well, that's actually the point. "Let them do what they want." And the questioner would be right; I cannot force anyone to change his or her mind. (I learned that the hard way regarding a disagreement that I actually cared a lot about, and one that had nothing to do with politics!) And from my human point of view: it is so incredibly hard, especially when I want someone to see something that I see that is important to me, even critically so. I don't think there is a human alive who doesn't have that view.

"Let them do what they want." Here's the thing: our choices affect ourselves. (OK, so what?) Our choices affect others. (So?) Even though we are not responsible for others' choices, our own choices can and do also affect choices that they make. Um, yes, that's right. And, whether or not you believe in God, let alone Jesus as the Messiah, our choices affect Him. Doesn't matter if you don't believe. He still exists and is affected by what you do and don't do. Our choices affect not only our futures but also our eternities. And what informs our choices? Our identities, or namely, what we believe it to be. What we think of ourselves affects what we do, and consequently affects (even if minuscule) what others think of themselves, as well as their choices. From there, it is a never-ending chain reaction of choices and responses. As such, we really are in this together, which ironically I suspect is an opinion of those who also hold the belief "let them do what they want."

"Let them do what they want." But... "we are (also) in this together." Hmm... Is there anyone alive who really believes only one of these statements but not the other? There is more to excavate from this, but I think I best save that for another post.

To circle back to the question from the beginning of this post that I've left open this whole time: even though one reason I might flip my perspective on various topics is particularly because I don't care to be rushed to form a passionate opinion on it, I also will change my perspective based on who I'm forming friendships and close relationships with. The fact is, I have friends on both sides of the political aisle that I care about and tend to be loyal to. I care about and am loyal to my Democratic-voting friends who just want all people to be treated fairly (and in my words, to be treated well). And I care about and am loyal to my conservative-voting friends who want our nation to be restored to what we were when we were at least trying to follow the Bible, when we were trying to trust God, when we were also following a system (one laid out by the Constitution) that, at least for a while did honestly and truly work, and can work again. And in each case of friends on one side of the political aisle or the other, what I do hear is a common cry for us all to do better. (Common ground! What a concept!)

I agree with all of you. I think we can and ought to do better. To that end, my two fundamental views are this: 1.) the Bible is the Word of God (and a reliable history book); and 2.) people matter (their lives, their dreams, their wishes, etc). Even though I also care about several other topics, they pale in comparison to these two truths, or fit under these two truths. And when I engage with my various friends in terms of talking about what's going on around us, I owe it to each and every one of them to listen to them and hear what they have to say. I don't have to agree with what is said or even to understand it. (As a matter of fact, that's a great opportunity to ask them further questions!)

I will close this post by linking you to another post I wrote a decade ago on how I felt about the state of our nation:

September 29, 2009: A message to politicians and politically-inclined people

My message: I believe our nation is in serious trouble, folks, and have for many years. And if I thought we were in trouble in 2009, I believe that in 2019 we are in even worse trouble. Not explicitly because of who's in office (although I know many I'm connected to believe strongly about it), but because of how all 300+ million of us have progressed in our attitudes, our beliefs, and yes, in our identities.

More to come.

The truth about temptation and confusion

This post's theme is more under the line of "an oldie but a goodie" ...

I had an exchange with a friend just yesterday that involved me asking him a question about something I was confused by (specifically my confusion was regarding if I heard from someone else what I thought I had heard). His response confirmed what I'd known all along, which also confirmed that I could basically throw out what I wasn't sure if I heard or not.

I'm being cryptic for confidentiality's sake.

I'd had a rough few days, in part because of my confusion that dated back to the beginning of the week, which led into temptation over those few days. Both the confusion and temptation, however, were broken once I heard from my friend what had been true all along. As I was driving home, I started praising Jesus by repeatedly declaring: "I declare that Jesus is bigger than my circumstances!" "I declare that Jesus is bigger than my fear!" "I declare that Jesus is bigger than my worries!" Because, especially during the day yesterday which had a bunch of little things happen that stirred up my fear of lack of security in my life (and especially for my future), and activated my desire to control every little thing around me. And I was angrily yelling at Jesus basically the opposite of what I finally declared at the end of the night.

So why is this an oldie but a goodie? Because while I was thanking Jesus, I repeated a verse that has been inscribed in my mind and heart for almost a decade now: "Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away." James 1:14, New Living Translation. (It's hard for me to prove it, but this passage I typed from memory, unlike most that I post. Usually I go to Biblegateway.com and copy and paste the verse from there.)

Furthermore, when I went on Facebook, one of my friends posted as his verse of the day the verse that immediately preceded it: (this one I will copy and paste from Biblegateway.com) "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" James 1:13, New International Version. (This one I did look up.)

Often when I have experiences like this where I come across one Biblical truth from one source, and then shortly after hear the same thing again from a different source (or something similar), it's a clear signal that that's Jesus was and is trying to get my attention.

Not many verses are written in my heart where I know it verbatim (or close to it) plus book, chapter number, and verse number. There are many where I can approximate the gist of the passage and then a vague reference like "it's in the Gospels somewhere", or "it's in Psalms somewhere", etc. The origins of this section of the book of James (James 1:12-18) came from a time basically a decade ago when my own obsessive desires were affecting my life to the point that they were beyond unmanageable. Specifically, I had a friend who was the object of said desires who I visited (she lives in a different part of the country from me), and in my time there I experienced a lot of fear, anxiety, and pain. In the end it was clear that, as a key early step in God's restoration project that was my mind and heart, she needed to be removed from my life. The passage from James 1:12-18, specifically about temptation, about the fact that our own desires can and often do lead us into sin, and if we take it far enough, to spiritual death, spoke directly to that. It hurt. A lot, I might add. But it was also an opportunity for Biblical truth to be rubber-stamped in my being.

As a side note, the other verse that was stamped into my being at the same time was Romans 5: "not only so, but we rejoice in our sufferings, for suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope. And this hope is not in vain, for God poured out His love in us. And while we were still His enemies, He sent Jesus to die for us. You may or may not die for even a good person, although you might if that person was especially good. But Jesus died for us while we were still sinners."

I'm pretty sure that isn't verbatim. But it's close. Because I don't want to misrepresent the Bible in any way, below is the exact passage:

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 

Romans 5:3-8, NIV

Kinda-sorta. It has been a while since I last came across this verse. I'm glad I posted the correct version. But even with my so-so-at-best take on it, you can see how certain seasons when certain verses are used for my growth, I'll remember the at least the important parts.

The story continues. Even since last night, I've had two interactions, one last night and one this morning that I'm bookmarking and keeping my eye on. Potential signs that may or may not answer the "now what?" question that often accompanies periods of temptation and confusion.

Some revelations on Revelation

I'm finding I'm beginning more and more Bible-intensive posts with disclaimers. This post will not be an exception.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the end times, nor the book of Revelation. For starters, its contents are tricky. Whereas the entire rest of the Bible consists of accounts from the past, or letters written in the past about a situation that was present at that given time, the last book in the Bible reads as a record of a vision someone had regarding events yet to happen. At worst, it gives rise to my retort "how many 'winners' who write history books write about the future?" (regarding the phrase "the winners write the history books")

At any rate, this book -- I think more than any other -- has served as a lightning rod for the question that many skeptics have had of the Bible's reliability, and debates that have stirred up as a result. I do think there are legitimate questions, given that this is a record of a vision a man named John had. Having spent almost the last decade attending a church where prophecy and prophetic prayer is a key part of our ministry, I can definitively say that prophecy is tricky. It really is. Primarily, we have to interpret it rightly, and us humans often get the interpretation wrong, especially if we don't know the history of the Bible and the history of how God had shown up both in Biblical history and in our own lives. I've often received prophetic words and visions, only for me to realize that they don't apply to me. (We have learned as a church to be very intentional and upfront about adding disclaimers.) But, I will also stress that I have also had experiences -- usually more so with commands regarding how to handle a situation or a friendship -- where I experienced that God has spoken clearly, and I too have seen how my following through (or not following through) resulted in the consequences that they did.

Regarding the book of Revelation, though, we also have had preacher after preacher predicting the end of time based on mathematical formulae, and each time having been proved wrong. Embarrassing. As it well should be. After all, Jesus Himself made it clear: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36 AND Mark 13:32, New International Version)

So when I look at this last book in the Bible -- which isn't often, mind you -- I do so knowing that I have no clue as to the timeline of when and how all these things recorded in the prophetic vision will happen. I do believe that what is described in Revelation 12:1-6 did indeed happen on September 23, 2017. I even posted about it. (You can see it here.) But that's it.

But a headline about New York City deporting homeless people to other states woke up my conscience. I did check to see that it was a real headline. The first article is courtesy of the New York Post; the second article is courtesy of New York's NBC TV station. I won't go into a whole lot of depth about the content of these articles, but they both state that the city has been sending homeless people away on one-way tickets to places like Hawaii and Mississippi.

What prompted me to post about this at all (after all, I don't think about the end times a whole lot, and I don't read the book of Revelation a whole lot) was a recent string of posts on Facebook from a friend of mine who thinks a lot about the end times. Has for years. The one post that jumped out for me, though, referenced FEMA and guillotines in the same sentence. Earlier this year I had a conversation with another friend who had said that FEMA has ordered a mass number of guillotines, over the last couple of years. If that sounds scary, it's because it is. A simple Google search with the words "FEMA guillotines youtube" revealed the following results: Guillotines at US Military Bases ; One Man's Opinion on FEMA's Welcoming Campaign ; FEMA Receiving 16,000 Guillotines From Mexico ... (these are just a few of the results, three out of like 20,100 results, according to the aforementioned Google search)

I'm not going to go on record and say that this is absolutely what's happening. In this video, PNN appears to set the record straight about US law on lawful execution, basically that there is no US law that allows it. However, the following verse from Revelation says this (boldface mine):

I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4, New International Version

It seems clear that those who stay true to the cause of Jesus and the cause of following Him will at some point, either in the near future or a few generations down the road, will face this fate. I don't know that this specifically says that the homeless being deported will also face this fate -- if anything, it doesn't seem to suggest it at all -- but I then come across the following passage:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.
Revelation 6:9-11, New International Version

As I've mentioned in the past, I've seen persons with signs asking for money at street intersections. Over the last year especially, I feel like Jesus has brought them more and more to my attention. Usually I've avoided them. Sometimes I'll give something. In the past, I've chatted up a guy or two. While I was living in Rogers Park I often came across a guy named "Tom" in a wheelchair at the intersection of Howard, Western, and Asbury. When he was out there and I stopped at a red light, I would chat him up and ask how he's doing. When he wasn't out on the street, I sometimes saw him hang out inside the Starbucks.

But generally I don't really know what to do. My defense against giving these folks anything is that 1.) it won't really help them (specifically referring to the folks I've seen out there for months, perhaps years); 2.) if I keep giving and giving, eventually I'll be broke like them. But, in June I had a couple experiences -- where I ended up avoiding interacting with the person -- that spoke to me my own failure of conscience regarding using what I had to help them. One of them was a guy holding a sign that said "bad back, need help", a mere few weeks after my back really went bad.

Today as I post this, I still don't know what to do. I've been getting myself to give a little more often, particularly if an individual does catch my attention. But, in going back to the passage from Revelation 6, I can't help but wonder how many of these people could also be counted among those referenced.

Finally, a stern warning from Jesus:

The Sheep and the Goats 

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” 

Matthew 25:31-46, New International Version

I don't think there is anything more that can be said right now.

Debunking common myths about seasons

Growing up, I was taught that there were four seasons. There is truth to that. But one thing I've discovered as an adult is that I was long under the impressions that each season was equal in length: spring went three months (March, April, and May); summer went three months (June, July, and August); fall went three months (September, October, and November); and winter went three months (December, January, February).

I can definitively say that that's not true. March is definitely a winter month. September is definitely still a summer month. Fall (or autumn, if you prefer to call it that), based on what I've seen, lasts two weeks, more or less the last two weeks of October. Spring also is short, albeit much more variable. This year spring actually lasted a while, from sometime in late-April through late-June.

What I've concluded is that winter and summer are the long seasons, and spring and fall are the short seasons. It's reflected also in the rate of change of how much sunlight we get. I consulted a chart many years ago, from which I deduced that the days are really long from about May 1 to August 15, really short from about November 1 to February 15 (both spans of 3/12 months), and then either rapidly get longer or shorter over 2 1/2 month spans. You can find the chart "here"...

If I were a teacher in school and had to teach the subject of seasons, here is what I would tell my pupils:

1. summer lasts about 4 months (more or less from the beginning of June to the end of September and perhaps even into October).
2. winter lasts about 5 months (sorry! but it's true! from the beginning of November to mid-April sometime).
3. fall lasts really about two weeks, but longer depending of the length of the foliage season.
4. spring can last about a month or two, depending on how long winter hangs on, how much rain we get, among other things.

And most importantly:

The seasons fade into one another.

Contrary to what it appears that even I might have said thus far, oftentimes in months like November, like March and April, like May and June, and like October, we will see weather in both the season that we are leaving, as well as the new season that is coming. Often what happens when one season leaves and another begins to enter is we start experiencing a glimpse of weather in the new season for a day, and then return to the weather from the outgoing season for the next 2-3 days. Then another day of new-season weather, then maybe another day or so of outgoing-season weather. Eventually, the ratio between new-season weather and outgoing-season weather hits 50/50, and then after that we begin experiencing more weather of the new season and less of the outgoing season, until finally, when we are far enough into the new season that we have no more weather from the previous season, until the next year.

To close my point, in Chicago we had a snowstorm on Halloween this year. Here are photos from the following morning, after the snow had finished falling.

The temperatures shot back up into the 50s later that day.

Why I Say The Bible Is A History Book, Part 3: "It's Up To You"

As I was wrapping up writing Part 2 to this series, I felt it in my spirit that a Part 3 was forthcoming, along with the phrase "it's up to you." And then I promptly lost a bunch of the vision, particularly some Bible passages or scenes that were also coming to mind.

Sometime in the first couple years after I graduated from college, a classmate of mine posted a link to a web comic of sorts on her Facebook page. I've forgotten the exact words, the exact details of the comic, but it illustrated the difference between wishing and hoping for something to happen vs. taking action and making that thing happen. It appeared to paint the Christian faith as the former; it painted the idea that praying and trusting in God as some kind of victim-mentality approach to reaching one's goal vs taking action steps to make the goal happen.

I now think of it more as commentary on how non-Christians have seen Christians, particularly American Christians, practice their faith. (I don't know that the creator of the strip saw it that way, but it's how it came across to me, anyway.) For example, "Let go and let God" has been a common saying among many mainline churches (especially megachurches) for the last several decades. The idea here is for us to surrender control of whatever it is we pray for, seek, desire, want, need, etc. Where I think it has gotten twisted, however, is the idea that letting go of control means we just do nothing and expect God to do everything. I'm not saying it can't happen that way; I am saying that typically, letting go and letting God means trusting God to direct our path, while we still are active doing the things we are already doing in our lives.

For example, I do remember the comic strip commenting about losing weight, and the commentary specifically painted two diametrically opposing approaches: 1.) praying to God to lose weight, but doing nothing; 2.) taking action steps, like dieting and exercise, but not even including God at all in the process.

For the record, I'm not even saying there aren't cases where the latter doesn't work -- in fact, one could successfully argue that the latter approach, taking action but not including God -- does work. For that goal. But, the person that does that runs the risk of idolatry: whether it's idolizing the goal itself, or idolizing the process itself, or worse, idolizing themselves, because, "wow, what a good job I did at reaching this goal! It's all because of me!"

The thing is, the non-Christians aren't inherently wrong on this. To a great extent, no matter what one's goal is, one has to put in the effort. If you want a healthier body (whether that revolves around physical appearance or around physical energy), sitting around doing nothing but hoping and wishing for it won't bring about the change you desire. Rather, looking at what you eat, doing some research, and then implementing a change in your eating plan will go much further toward positively affecting your body. (I've actually been there myself recently -- I've been having sustained gut issues for the last few months. I did nothing for the first couple months, and predictably my body didn't get better. It was only once I started systematically making changes, including seeing a doctor and a gut specialist, as well as switching around several foods that I regularly eat, that change started occurring.)

I think about famous figures in history. Because of the simple fact that they took action, we remember their names:

Abraham Lincoln didn't sit by when the young United States were in tension over the issue of slavery. God called him to step into politics, first and foremost: first, as a lawyer; second, as a congressman; third, as the president of the United States. He oversaw the Civil War, and used his skills as a lawyer and politician to push the 13th Amendment into law, the first step towards criminalizing slavery. While he also oversaw the end of the Civil War, he would be assassinated before he could have the opportunity to oversee the next phase, Reconstruction.

Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't sit by when God called him to speak out against the Jim Crow segregation laws. He first chose to step into the call of pastorship. Then, he started speaking out against specific local laws that discriminated against African Americans, including initiating the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and organizing rallies to overturn similarly unjust laws in Albany, Georgia, in Birmingham, Alabama, and in Selma, Alabama. He didn't stop there: he continued saying "yes" to the call of speaking out against other injustices across the US, and continued spurring on those who only had known oppression to continue standing up, just as he had done. Like Lincoln, his choice to answer the call cost him his life in the same manner.

Harriet Tubman didn't sit by when God called her to free others from slavery. Due to her plantation owners trying to sell her (she had struggled with illness off-and-on, possibly related to aftereffects from head trauma she incurred as an adolescent and was deemed useless), she was motivated to gain freedom for herself. She returned back to the area where she had been in slavery, risking her own freedom, let alone her life, to bring others also to freedom. (About 70 in all.) Not only that, but she also helped many of them find work. Later, she served as a cook in the Union Army during the Civil War. She spent the latter portion of her life helping with the women's suffrage movement.

Martin Luther (not King, Jr.) didn't sit by when he saw his beloved Roman Catholic Church increase in corruption. God called him to speak out, particularly against the indulgences that the papacy was selling, a way of manipulating church-goers spiritually to make extra money. Speaking out cost him his freedom; he was consigned to a tower as a result. But in that tower, Jesus led him to translate the Holy Scriptures -- at that time only written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin -- into German. He paved the way for Europeans who didn't understand Latin to be able to see and hear the Scriptures in their native languages, and paved the way for the Bible to be translated into many other languages, including French, Spanish, Dutch, and English. Personally I have him to thank for being able to read a Bible in my own language.

There are many others, of course. But here is something else (and it may shock some people). The Bible also is full of people who took action:

Abraham (not Lincoln) didn't sit by when God called him to be a father of what would eventually become the Israelite nation. “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing." Genesis 12:2, NIV. His challenge was believing and following through, given his wife, Sarah, was unable to conceive any children for a long time. (Abraham did try to get around that by having a child -- Ishmael -- with someone else.) God did call him again, though, 24 years later, and still no child with Sarah, to be a father of the Israelite nation. Eventually they did have a child, Isaac, in their old age (Abraham was 100 and Sarah was 90 (??!?)). But that's not all -- years later, God even called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on top of one of the mountains, to see if he would actually obey Him. God did tell Abraham to instead sacrifice ram in a nearby thicket, once He saw Abraham was willing to sacrifice his long-awaited-for son. After this, through the succeeding generations, did Abraham's family line expand to a fuller-size family, and later, into a nation.

Joseph didn't sit by when God called him, through indentured servitude and prison, to lead a nation about to go through a drought. His story began with circumstances out of his control that happened to him. His father, Jacob, gave him a coat that made him the envy of the family (and his older brothers already hated him). His older brothers, jealous of both their father's favor on him, and Joseph’s typically annoying little-brother behavior (“I got a coat! nyah-nyah-nyah!”),tricked him into being sold into slavery. That led him to more circumstances out of his control in Egypt: working as a slave for one of the Pharaoh's officials, being thrown into prison, until eventually, finally being promoted to second-in-command to the Pharaoh. But even though Joseph had all these circumstances put on him, he jumped on opportunities to serve well:

• When his master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord gave him success in everything he did, Joseph found favor in his eyes and became his attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned. Genesis 39:3-4, NIV.  
• “We both had dreams,” they answered, “but there is no one to interpret them.” Then Joseph said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me your dreams.” Genesis 40:8, NIV. 
• In the end, he reaped. So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Genesis 41:41, NIV.

Gideon didn't sit by when God spoke to him while he was threshing wheat at the bottom of a winepress, hiding from his country's rival the Midianites, who were oppressing them at the time. Even though he questioned God about his calling (“Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.” Judges 6:15, NIV) he obeyed. God's promise to be with him helped change his mind. On God's command, Gideon pulled down his father's altar to a foreign deity that they had been worshiping, and also cut down a precious pole standing next to it. His father's response to the townspeople who were angry at his actions: But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” Judges 6:31, NIV. Gideon went on to defeat their country's enemy, the Midianites, and finally put that rivalry to an end.

David didn't sit by when God -- via Samuel -- called him to become king of Israel, once He had decided Saul was no longer fit for the job. David stepped up when Israel's present enemy, the Philistines, led by their giant leader Goliath, was threatening to take over the kingdom. While the other Israelites -- including King Saul -- gave into their fear of the Philistines and particularly Goliath, David trusted God when he felt He was giving him an inside opportunity to defeat them. Not only did David topple Goliath, but he also finished the job by cutting off his head. (Yes, the Bible has bloody moments. Just like every honest history book ever written.) David also continued to trust God to protect him for the next few years while evading Saul, who tried repeatedly to kill him. "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies." Psalm 23:5a, NIV. But in the end, David ends up, through his relationship with God, and by God's grace, the best king in Israelite history.

Paul didn't sit by when God directly and supernaturally intervened as he was en route to Damascus. God told him in direct terms that he was persecuting Him. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? ... I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." Acts 9:4,5, NIV. (Paul up until that point was a Pharisee -- the equivalent to modern radical rule-enforcing, shaming, right-wing American Christian.) During the three days that he was blind (and also not eating anything), he spent the entire time with God, during which their time together transformed him and completely changed the rest of his career. Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. Acts 9:17-18a, NIV. Paul dedicated the rest of his life to telling the Good News about Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, visiting and writing letters to churches that been planted across what is now Turkey, across Greece, and ultimately in Rome. His actions cost him his freedom, and in the end his life as well.

And of course, there were many more individuals scattered through the Bible. You might have noticed I didn't include Jesus on this list. Of course He would be the most prime example! And truly, all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are full of example after example where He followed His Father's call, healed where He was called to heal, delivered where He was called to deliver, spoke hard truth where He was called to speak hard truth. But, what is also true is that Jesus was perfect. And is perfect. For mature Christians, this wouldn't be a preclusion whatsoever. But for non-Christians and/or new Christians, the truth of Jesus' perfection could theoretically come as a handy excuse for dismissing the magnitude of all that He did. I know in my own journey I've done that a lot, by discounting my own call with the idea that there's no way a vastly flawed human being such as myself could ever live up to a call that the perfect Creator and King of the universe has put on me. But that's the point with sharing about all the others: Abraham, Joseph, Gideon, David, and Paul; along with Lincoln, King, Tubman, and Luther. They were all flawed people, just like anyone not named Jesus. And they still were called. And they were able to obey.

Here's something else that may shock some people: the Bible also has a bunch of proverbs (particularly in a book titled Proverbs) that speak directly about passivity.

• Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! Proverbs 6:6, NIV.
• Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4, NIV.
• As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so are sluggards to those who send them. Proverbs 10:26, NIV.
• The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway. Proverbs 15:19, NIV.
• A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he will not even bring it back to his mouth! Proverbs 19:24, NIV.
• The craving of a sluggard will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work. Proverbs 21:25, NIV.
• A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. Proverbs 26:15, NIV. (Looks a lot like Proverbs 19:24... hmm...)

Finally, in my own personal life I have been hearing Jesus gently challenging me, specifically my own avoidance pattern, as well as spots of coldness in my heart that may be directly related. More recently, I have been reading a story that God has been using to reveal deeper pains and yearnings that I have, and I believe He has been using it to prepare me to answer the next call. My prayer, like the above historic figures, is to not let fear impede my obedience like it has in the past, regardless of how extravagant or how humble the call may be.

In both the Bible and in human history people have been called to great and extraordinary things, to great and extraordinary cost. And these people obeyed the call. The individuals in the Bible that God called are no different than the individuals in more recent history that God also called. First, it shows that true Biblical Christianity is not being a victim and relying on mere wishing and hoping for a goal or a call to be accomplished; rather, Scripture shows that it does take action and that it's no different from the rest of human history in this regard. Second, because it confirms the above, it too must be a history book. In the same way that my previous post revealed that bloodiness, defilement, rape, and murder are every much a bit of history (both Biblical and otherwise) as all the good things, seeing folks answer the call to lead and serve and change lives for the better are also reliable indicators of not only something being historical, but also being consistent with history, both forwards and backwards.

It's up to us to make history once again by following God's leading.

Why I Say The Bible Is A History Book, Part 2: Introducing Arguably The Most Difficult Passage In The Bible

Reflective tangent, post-Part 1: I felt it best to chop this topic up in multiple posts. Today's post was my original focus, but I found myself needing to give some background to some of the most common and current opposition to the Bible. In today's climate, even simply declaring that the Bible is a history book is becoming scandalous even here in the United States of America. I get it: sadly, many Americans (including the most vocal Americans) who identify as a Bible-believing Christian also tend to ally themselves politically against race reconciliation and against social justice, both of which I believe Jesus cares a lot about. As such, a large plurality of Americans who happen to be vocal about racial reconciliation and about social justice, tend to look at those who identify as Bible-believers and automatically think "I want no part of whatever they're drinking." I repeat: I get it. I wouldn't either.

My heart for those who identify as a non-Christian -- are least as a non-Biblical-inerrancy-believing Christian -- who are still pro-racial reconciliation and pro-social justice is that you can separate the two. I believe it is not only possible to be a Bible-inerrancy-believing, racial-reconciliation-advocating, and social-justice-activist Christian, but that that's actually a big and important part of the heart of following Jesus. I am happy to then set this post as a plug for the Evanston Vineyard: as a church, that's what we are about. We are very much about racial reconciliation (the fact that we have no single ethnic majority, and that we have representatives from over 50 nations around the world, should prove that). And we are very much about social justice, between the Harvest Pantry, the Care Center, as well as various small groups and Bible studies that also focus on building godly relationships with those that might be culturally or ethnically different from us.

And, we also believe that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. 100 percent of it.* It is off this point that I wish to now delve into perhaps the most difficult passage that exists in the Bible. There are plenty of others, but this jumped out at me. Chances are, you are unlikely to hear a Sunday morning sermon on this in most churches, because... yow. Why am I attempting to examine this passage? That's a good question. I'm not a pastor, and, because I don't have the seminary training, I lack certain tools to be able to do it scholarly justice. But, what I do have is the heart to look at a Biblical passage through the lens of Christianity as a relationship with Jesus, and not merely a religion, and for me that's enough.

So I am here presenting to you the truth that the Bible is a history book. (One final side note, for those with technical minds: sure, some books are letters written from one person to another; but just know that when I've studied history-history, like say, the Civil War, part of our curriculum included reading letters from soldiers, from plantation owners, and others. It may not be in the textbook, but it is still part of the history. The Bible works the same way: King David's Psalms, King Solomon's several wisdom books, and Apostle Paul's letters to various churches and friends are as much part of the fabric of the ongoing story of our God in our midst as much as the accounts are.)

With that, here is arguably the most difficult passage in the Bible. Judges 19 (link to entire chapter here). First, the background (aka, the not-so-painful part):

1 In those days Israel had no king.
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. 4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.
5 On the fourth day they got up early and he prepared to leave, but the woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Refresh yourself with something to eat; then you can go.” 6 So the two of them sat down to eat and drink together. Afterward the woman’s father said, “Please stay tonight and enjoy yourself.” 7 And when the man got up to go, his father-in-law persuaded him, so he stayed there that night. 8 On the morning of the fifth day, when he rose to go, the woman’s father said, “Refresh yourself. Wait till afternoon!” So the two of them ate together.
9 Then when the man, with his concubine and his servant, got up to leave, his father-in-law, the woman’s father, said, “Now look, it’s almost evening. Spend the night here; the day is nearly over. Stay and enjoy yourself. Early tomorrow morning you can get up and be on your way home.” 10 But, unwilling to stay another night, the man left and went toward Jebus (that is, Jerusalem), with his two saddled donkeys and his concubine.

Judges 19:1-10, NIV

So far, not too terrible. Seemingly an ordinary story about a seemingly random Hebrew from the tribe of Levi and his concubine (or, his wife). They were so insignificant that they don't even have names. Basically, a Levite guy got married. His wife cheated on him. Then she left him to go back to her parents' house. (Great catch, dude! (Sarcasm)) He goes to her parent's house to pick her up and bring her back, but her father continually entreats him to stay, which he does, until the fifth day, when he's had enough. As far as I'm concerned, it's like: OK, why are we reading a story about an insignificant family? Let's read on.

11 When they were near Jebus and the day was almost gone, the servant said to his master, “Come, let’s stop at this city of the Jebusites and spend the night.”
12 His master replied, “No. We won’t go into any city whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah.” 13 He added, “Come, let’s try to reach Gibeah or Ramah and spend the night in one of those places.” 14 So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin. 15 There they stopped to spend the night. They went and sat in the city square, but no one took them in for the night.
16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the inhabitants of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, “Where are you going? Where did you come from?”
18 He answered, “We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the Lord.[a] No one has taken me in for the night. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, the woman and the young man with us. We don’t need anything.”
20 “You are welcome at my house,” the old man said. “Let me supply whatever you need. Only don’t spend the night in the square.” 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink. 

Judges 19:11-21, NIV

Still nothing out of the ordinary. At this point, the Levite, his wife, and their servant are journeying from Bethlehem back to the hilly country in northern Israel. ("Road trip!") They ended up stopping in the town of Gibeah for the night. After hanging out in downtown Gibeah for what seemed like quite a while, waiting for someone to show up to take them in (they didn't have motels in those days), an elderly man came from the fields and offered to take them in. From the text, this elderly man was moved to host them, likely because he was afraid for them if they spent the night outside in the center of town. (It's possible that it might not have been a safe neighborhood at night.) So, they spent the night at his house.

As a side note, I also realize I am inadvertently also proving how boring the Bible can be. Please try to understand, this book is in the heart of the Old Testament, which is also the entire Jewish Bible. It is both part of our Bible and a shared history and faith-heritage with those of the Jewish faith.

Anyway, this is where the boring part of the story ends. Given my parenthetical about how safe the neighborhood really was, the next bit of text seems to indicate that it really wasn't:

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!” 

Judges 19:22-30, NIV

...Yeah. Basically some wicked men (modern term: "hoodlums") show up wanting to rape the Levite. The elderly man who was hosting the Levite and his wife offered both his own daughter and the Levite's wife. Somehow, only the Levite's wife -- you know, the one who had cheated on him and then left him to go back to her parent's house -- she was the one raped and murdered. At best, it was very questionable judgment on the elderly man's part, offering his own daughter, let alone also offering one of his guests. It is notable that the Levite (the husband of the woman sacrificed to the hoodlums) appeared never to speak up, let alone to object to his decision. Same thing with the Levite's servant.

So, how do I explain that? The truth is, I can't. There is nothing to defend. It is clear as day that what happened here was wrong. Sure, the three men (the Levite, the Levite's servant, and the elderly man) might have been between a rock and a hard place. But it doesn't explain why they didn't try to fight for their women. It doesn't explain why they didn't put themselves on the line. (We don't know how able-bodied the elderly man really was, in regards to fighting. But it doesn't explain why neither the Levite nor his servant fought.)

But, the truth is all of human history is like that. Our history books record events like the Holocaust, the Apartheid, the slave trade, Jim Crow, 9-11, unpopular wars like the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, among many others. It records assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and countless others. It records rulerships of dictators like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and more. All of those things that are recorded were wrong at the time, and are still wrong. Not only so, but they were and are horrendous events, horrendous rulerships.

Just check out the list of kings below. It's a list of every king of Israel and of Judah who did evil in God's eyes, starting from Saul and going all the way to the Hebrews' exile into Babylon. Of the kings listed below, Saul and Joash were the two cases where they each started out doing what was good before doing what was evil, and Amaziah did what was good but not wholeheartedly. All the others, however, did what was evil from beginning to end. All translations New International Version (NIV):

• Saul (Israel): 1 Chronicles 10:13-14.
• Jeroboam (Israel): 1 Kings 13:33-34; 2 Chronicles 13:20.
• Rehoboam (Judah): 1 Kings 14:21-22; 2 Chronicles 12:1-2.
• Abijah (Judah): 1 Kings 15:1-3.
• Nadab (Israel): 1 Kings 15:25-26.
• Baasha (Israel): 1 Kings 15:33-34.
• Zimri (Israel): 1 Kings 16:15-19.
• Omri (Israel): 1 Kings 16:23-26.
• Ahab (Israel): 1 Kings 16:29-22.
• Ahaziah (Israel): 1 Kings 22:51-53.
• Joram (Israel): 2 Kings 3:1-3.
• Jehoram (Judah): 2 Kings 8:16-18; 2 Chronicles 21:4-6.
• Ahaziah (Judah): 2 Kings 8:25-27; 2 Chronicles 22:1-4.
• Jehoahaz (Israel): 2 Kings 13:1-3.
• Joash (Judah): 2 Chronicles 24:2; 2 Chronicles 24:17-24.
• Jehoash (Israel): 2 Kings 13:10-11.
• Amaziah (Judah): 2 Kings 14:1-3; 2 Chronicles 25:1-2.
• Jeroboam II (Israel): 2 Kings 14:23-24.
• Zechariah (Israel): 2 Kings 15:8-9.
• Shallum (Israel): 2 Kings 15:13-16.
• Mehahem (Israel): 2 Kings 15:17-18.
• Pekahiah (Israel): 2 Kings 15:23-24.
• Pekah (Israel): 2 Kings 15:27-28.
• Ahaz (Judah): 2 Kings 16:1-3; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4; 2 Chronicles 28:22-23.
• Hosheah (Israel): 2 Kings 17:1-5.
• Manasseh (Judah): 2 Kings 21:1-3; 2 Chronicles 33:1-2.
• Amon (Judah): 2 Kings 21:19-22; 2 Chronicles 33:21-23.
• Jehoahaz (Judah): 2 Kings 23:31-32.
• Jehoiakim (Judah): 2 Kings 23:36-37; 2 Chronicles 36:5.
• Jehoiachin (Judah): 2 Kings 24:8-9; 2 Chronicles 36:9.
• Zedekiah (Judah): 2 Kings 24:18-19; 2 Chronicles 36:11-12.

As much as we would love our history to only be full of good things, like the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (for other nations insert your equivalent points in history), the presidencies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and maybe a couple others... and as much as we like our Bible to have only stories of miracles, like Moses parting of the Red Sea, Young David slaying the Philistine, the birth of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, what earth will be like after Christ comes back and destroys all those who are evil... the truth is, all of our history has both beauty and ugliness, joy and pain, victories and losses. And like the above passage from Judges 19 -- as well as the very many passages I referenced regarding all the kings who did evil in God's eyes -- the Bible is full of ugly moments. Just like every honest history book ever written.

One other thing I think it's important to note: just because it records a woman getting raped, murdered, and cut up into twelve pieces, it doesn't mean that God was OK with it happening. In fact, I believe that God was not OK with it happening. Even though it doesn't say it, I believe God -- the Father, Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit -- grieved not only over her passing, but also the manner in which she passed on. Not only so, but perhaps also grieved over the loss of her soul as well. The text does not say whether she ever repented to the Lord (or her husband) for cheating on him or for running off. We don't know what happened; and sadly it is our loss that we don't get to know. As such, we also do not know, nor do we get to know, the fate of all the men in the story: neither the Levite, nor his servant, nor the elderly man who hosted them, nor the hoodlums. What I do know is that I believe God judged each of the men according to their actions. How He judged, I cannot say. I wasn't there. But I do believe that He judged them.

A final piece of context: the entire book of Judges takes place when Israel itself was not following God nor His commandments. Yes, even after settling in the Promised Land that Moses led them to and Joshua led them into. Yes, even after tale after tale after cautionary tale of their ancestors disbelieving and disobeying God and reaping the consequences (i.e. they forfeited their privilege of being allowed into the Promised Land). The simple truth is, not two generations later, the Israelites forgot everything that God and their ancestors had warned them.

1 The angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.’”
4 When the angel of the Lord had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, 5 and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the Lord. 

Judges 2:1-5, NIV

10 After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel. 11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals. 12 They forsook the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They aroused the Lord’s anger 13 because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths. 

Judges 2:10-13, NIV

This was not a good time for the Kingdom of Israel. The book of Judges, as such, is dark. But it was honest. And, for those of you who like your history books to be honest, to truthfully record history as it happened, and not some kind of rose-colored glasses perspective, there are parts of the Bible that are going to be hard, and dark, and bloody, and rather disgusting. These events aren't in Scripture because God was OK with it. In fact, I believe that He was not OK with it. But they still happened. And I believe that He dealt with the individuals individually once they passed out of the flesh.

My hope, from having delved into these passages (particularly Judges 19, though) is to help remove what I think is and has been a stumbling block for many: if God is so good, and the Bible is so good, why are there so many terrible things recorded? Another form of that question can be: if God is God, why do bad things still happen? The short answer is that it's the consequence of Him giving us humans free will, in the hopes that we would choose to love Him, rather than this alternate idea that God should just force us to love Him. He's not that way, and it doesn't work that way. But the messiness of this world -- sin, horror, war, famine, pestilence, genocide, racism, slavery, rape, etc -- is the risk that He has taken with us from the beginning. Personally, I still struggle with that in my heart, and I expect that I will struggle with it for the rest of my life. But the hope is that I can still draw near to Jesus in spite of everything that is wrong in the world, in me, and in my ever-evolving circumstances. And, that if I am able to succeed at connecting with Jesus through Scripture every day, maybe I could be able to overcome my struggle with this question, at least for a moment. At the very least I'll grow closer to Him. That would be nice.

* Both my church and I support women being pastors. I understand that it is a sticky and hard topic among many other churches. As the Holy Spirit leads, maybe someday I'll challenge myself to look at it with fresh eyes and see what it is in the text (specifically Paul's letter to Timothy) that has led many churches to not support women as pastors, and maybe even to offer clarity and encouragement for those whose stumbling block regarding trusting the Bible rests on this topic.

Why I Say The Bible Is A History Book, Part 1: Attempting To First Diffuse The New Belief That The Bible Is "Hate Speech"

I begin with a tangential disclaimer: not all churches agree on what constitutes "The Bible" or "The Holy Scriptures." From what I understand, most true-to-the-Bible churches agree (if not all) that the Bible constitutes of the following books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

There are a number of mainline churches though that add the following books to the above list: Tobit, Judith, Additions to the Book of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), Baruch, The letter of Jeremiah (separate from the Book of Jeremiah in the previous list), The Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, 2 Esdras (not to be confused with the Book of Nehemiah in the previous list), and 4 Maccabees. These books make up what is commonly referred to as the Apocrypha, which some churches include in their Bible. To be clear, my church doesn't count it as part of Holy Scripture, and neither do I.

And then the Jewish synagogues, minus the Messianic congregations, include all books from Genesis to Malachi in their Holy Scriptures, but not the Apocrypha, and not the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation). At least, it is to the best of my understanding that this is so.

I begin with this tangential disclaimer not to put any church down or even to pump myself up with any sermon along the lines of "this is right and that is wrong" (although personally I do stand with what I listed in the first paragraph as what are the true Biblical books). Rather, my purpose is to attempt to illustrate the climate of the common beliefs among places of worship (churches and synagogues alike) as my backdrop for my main point: that the Bible is a history book, or at least, much of it is. While not all churches and synagogues will agree on what the full compilation of our "history book" actually is, I still choose to hope and believe that we do agree that it is a history book, that it is true, and not just something we refer to in our worship services because it's tradition.

In 2019, we are beginning to reach the point in the United States (and have already been there awhile across Europe) where not only do the majority of people consider the Bible non-historical, but also consider it "hate speech." This has been the result of a slow decay not only in morality but also in the pervasive belief that there is not only a God but only one God, that Jesus Messiah is the one and only way to heaven and there are no shortcuts, etc. This belief -- and truth -- has been replaced not only by science (which by the way I think science is good, to a point), but also an accompanying belief that, if science cannot prove it, it therefore cannot exist. That is to say, science can neither prove nor disprove that God exists, so the natural conclusion (if science is now the be-all, end-all for all things) is that somehow, God must not exist at all. And if God doesn't exist because science cannot prove it, then the result is a godless world where the only real plumb line of right and wrong is our own feelings, our own "innate sense" of right and wrong, finicky in and of itself. Then things like divorce, abortion, sex (of all kinds), and now "gender identity" become new gods and new religions unto themselves. In place of a god who no longer exists (because science cannot prove it), we begin to look at things like churches and Bibles as either unnecessary or evil.

And that presents an interesting quandary: because churches are run (stewarded) by human beings, they have the power to change their mission statements, either in accordance with what people want, or in outright hostility to what people want, or (hopefully) to stand true with what God has called them. But at least churches have the power to change or not to change. The Bible cannot change. Sure, new translations can arise that are more palatable to modern human sensibilities. Even then, that presents a new danger: if we change the Bible to appease humans who now view the Scriptures as unnecessary at best and evil at worst, then we are compromising the Bible to suit people's wants, rather than God's will. And that's dangerous.

But, if we don't, then we risk at best passive indifference, or at worst open hostility to the Scriptures. We're seeing it in Europe now: the idea that the Bible is "hate speech" has been floating around. I of course disagree, and not only that but can prove that it is rather love speech, with this one passage: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16, NIV.

Notice that it doesn't say: "for God so hated the world." It says: "for God so loved the world." Loved. Loved. Loved. Check out the subsequent verse: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17, NIV. Let's break it down into its three parts:

1.) God sent Jesus (His Son) into the world. It clearly states that Jesus is God's Son. It clearly states that God sent Him. It also clearly states that God sent Him into the world, meaning that Jesus did actually exist in our time at one point in time in our past.

2.) God didn't send Jesus into the world to condemn us. This directly contradicts the belief that the Bible is "hate speech." Because condemnation and "hate speech" are one and the same. A modern way of looking at that part of the verse could be: "God did not send His Son Jesus to hate on the world..."

Side note: Another verse from Apostle Paul that clearly talks about the Bible: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV. It clearly says that the Bible was breathed by God. What it means is that while humans did jot down the words themselves, God still directly dictated every word, from each book of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation (but not any of the books from the Apocrypha, for they were written quite a bit later, well after the early church was underway). So, as far as I'm concerned, the Gospels are not hate speech, Jesus is not a hater (He was angry with the Religious Right of the Jewish leaders during the Roman times when He appeared, but He didn't hate them), and coming off Apostle Paul's note to Timothy, if the Gospels are not hate speech, then neither is the entire rest of the Bible. And for anyone reading who directly opposes this truth, might I remind you that there is a bevy of historical scholarship that supports it, as well as sites across Israel and neighboring lands that stand as physical proof of these places recorded in the Bible.

Back to John 3:17. 3.) God sent Jesus into the world to save us. To save us. Not to hate on us; not to condemn us; but to save us. Why? Well, because humans are inherently selfish and evil by nature. If the story of Adam and Eve isn't enough proof for you, then this verse will have to suit you: "As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;'" Romans 3:10, NIV. Want context? Here it is:

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. 

Romans 3:9-20, NIV

It states that Jews and Gentiles (basically, every other race on this planet) alike are all under the power of sin. To double down: every human being who has ever lived has been under the power of sin. As such, every human being who has ever lived stills needs to be saved. And the fact that Jesus came to save us is good news. Not bad news. Not hate news. Good news. And to bring it back full-circle regarding an increasing number of human beings who proclaim the Bible as "hate speech," who am I inclined to believe? The Bible which solidly and unequivocally calls itself God-breathed and the Good News for all, or a bunch of evil human beings who claim that the Bible is "hate speech"?

At this point, I will leave my defense there. As far as I'm concerned, the text passages I have shared are sufficient for me. If the above verses do not suffice for any of you who are still in sharp disagreement with the Bible being true, and moreover "love speech" and not "hate speech," I will need to continue that in another post or in another space.