If you haven’t made a choice, then you are probably following yourself. I would like to suggest that this may not be the best path. Whether it’s Gandhi or your gut, you’ve given way to someone when it comes to dividing good from bad, right from wrong, and what is worthy from what is garbage.

Obviously the “Sunday School” answer to give you is that Jesus should be who you follow, and this is true. But all too often we’re following “jesus,” this generic embodiment of Christianity made up of loosely remembered Bible passages, folk wisdom and country songs. We have not decided to make an actual effort to discovering this hidden life and in the meantime just any old crap floating in the atmosphere around us seeps in. But when we take that first step towards pursuing a life like Christ’s, it usually involves reading some more contemporary writers first in order to get an idea of what this life looks like today.

We begin to read a little more broadly and finally we come across some of the more introductory theologians, people like Donald Miller, John Ortberg or John Eldridge (I’d put Dobson and possibly even Obama in this category as well). People who are “spiritual” writers, but aren’t spending rigorous hours working out the nuances of this question or that question. They’re there to introduce you to this whole other world. One where you begin to take your life (not just your “Christian life”) more seriously, and begin to pursue discipline actively instead of just letting things happen to you.

Then, you move on to the next rung, the Beth Moore/Dallas Willard/John Piper books/tapes/dvd’s/tshirts/etc. Most people who become serious about training their minds in a certain direction get here and stop. There is nothing wrong with that! I’m going to say some critical things, but let me be clear in saying that I am not demanding everyone read every arcane and centuries-old theologian they can find.

If you’ve gotten to this level, you are to be commended. You are taking this life seriously and are searching out wisdom for living. However, allow me to make a few comments about theologians in general that will hopefully help you along the path.

First, look for people who are starting with God and Jesus as fully formed beings and not just honing in on one aspect above all others. Here is what I mean: if you read the Old Testament you will notice quickly that God seems at the same time incredibly personal and yet incredibly “other”. The Israelites started from the viewpoint that God will do what God will do, that God is God. Maybe something seems contradictory or overly cruel or even overly forgiving (ask Jonah what the Ninevites deserved), but it’s God’s prerogative to do whatever He deems right to do.

The seed of this kind of mistake is often born in what passes for “systematic theology.” Many people seem to think it is the pursuit of “finding out what is right.” But it should really be seen as “I want to make sure my ideas are consistent with the Bible and with each other, so I’m building a map to make sure that’s happening.”

Many contemporary theologians publish their Bible maps – their attempts at making sense of their thoughts about God’s word – and people latch on to it as if it were the gospel itself. You must also know that you are absolutely free to reject any theologians writings at any time. You have been given the same Spirit, and it is up to you to be in conversation with him as you divide what is for you and what is not.

Second, realize that many theologians are answering questions that you may not be asking. Many books and articles are written over years and years of careful consideration. Sometimes you can catch someone in the middle of an argument and not know the context. I thought The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder was extremely compelling, but you won’t get the full sense of that book unless you know about the questions and criticisms he was answering (which is why he has one of the longest “notes” section I’ve ever seen outside of your average dissertation).

You won’t know Calvin fully until you begin to place him in his context, reading people like Luther and Zwingli or even voices from the counter-Reformation. A lot of times, they’re all trying to answer the same questions and are referencing each other even though you will have no idea they’re doing it.

The problem is that we oftentimes take what is said and begin to apply it to our lives immediately and have no clue we’re taking it out of context. This is bad, but it is worse when you follow someone who is doing the same thing. I love Willard and have read some Piper here and there, but you have to take everything they write as a landmark on the path of their own journeys, not as gospel.

I’m not saying we need to enter this world where all we’re doing is contextualizing everything any theologian has ever written. What I am saying is that when you read someone’s book, take what you find useful, but realize that it may actually be 100% wrong.

If it strikes you as true, live your life like it is. But if you come across new evidence to the contrary, weigh that evidence and move forward a wiser person. Do NOT simply dismiss new information because it doesn’t agree with what you read in a book. Even if it doesn’t agree with what you know about the Bible, take the time to actually check it out first. You and I have not cornered the market on biblical knowledge, I promise you.

Obama and Dobson are on two different edges of the same coin (not even on different sides, really), but it seems that both of them are so wed to a certain way of thinking that they can’t see the merits of the other viewpoint. The problem lies in the fact that many people are following these two men and have decided to let them think on their behalf.

Now, this is an election year, and you don’t win elections by being fair-minded and contemplative, unfortunately. But you and I are not running for president and we’re not heading large faith-based corporations (that I know of), so we have no excuse to let people we don’t even know impose their personal Bible maps on us.

You are communing with the Spirit of God on a daily basis, you therefore have as much access to Truth as any theologian you have ever heard of. Use what God has given you and live YOUR life.

Acts 15:1-20 – The Jerusalem Council

Through the incident with Cornelius, Peter is confronted on the basis of his diet, a central aspect of Jewish life to be sure. It would seem, though, that assaulting dietary practices was nothing compared to challenging the practice of circumcision. In much the same way as in Acts 10, the Jewish believers are confronted to reassess their very understanding of themselves as the people of God.

What makes them distinct if not their diet or circumcision? It becomes obvious that these outward practices must be subordinated to the Spirit. In Acts 10, Peter receives a vision from God and witnesses the Spirit descend upon Cornelius’ household in order to be convinced. In Acts 15, however, the believing Jews must weigh the witness of Paul and Barnabas.

David K. Strong argues that this passage addresses the crucial question: “Will the Jerusalem church sanction unhindered outreach to the Gentiles?” (Strong 2004:197) Although this is certainly a concern of the passage, I think the question carries with it a certain bias we must address. The question is not whether the Jerusalem church will allow it, but whether it will follow the path the Spirit has already laid out. Change comes from the margins, and those in the center often find themselves at a loss when the center moves. It is with this firmly in mind that we look at the words of Paul and James, respectively.

The Testimony of Paul and Barnabas

Paul’s speech communicates two important ideas regarding the reflexivity of mission. First, God had chosen to send Paul out from the community to witness to the Gentiles. Second, and more important for the matter at hand, Paul has seen God in the Gentile communities and now has a word for those in Jerusalem.
Newbigin observes that, “the gospel escapes domestication, retains its proper strangeness, its power to question us, only when we are faithful to its universal, supranational, supracultural nature” (Newbigin 1988:50).

The mission has become reflexive, aimed back at Jerusalem, the city from which the Jewish believers assumed it had originated. God’s plan is larger and more diverse, however, than we tend to give it credit for, and this passage is no exception. The hearts of the Gentiles have been cleansed by faith, and it is not for the people of God to be harsher than God himself.

James’ Judgment

James wisely appeals to the words of the prophets in seeking an answer to the question of circumcision. He is able to distinguish what is required from what is not regarding the practice. James also appeals to the testimony of Simeon, showing that Paul and Barnabas are certainly not the only ones with a heart for the Gentiles.

In his role as apostle and using his pastoral gifting, James sets limitations regarding idolatry, fornication, and diet. Much like Peter’s experience, the Jerusalem council is forced to address their self-identity. It seems, though, that the Gentiles have much to teach the Jewish believers regarding the life of faith. This passage brings to light the tendency of all “religious” people to define themselves by certain practices.
It takes exposure to other cultures, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, and the wisdom of James to discern the Spirit’s intention in this situation.

There are wider ramifications for the church at large, but we must not confuse the paternalistic tone taken by the Jerusalem Council with the subsequent actions of the Gentile believers. One certainly can assert that the decision against requiring circumcision was encouraging to the Gentile believers, but that they would have continued as normal without such encouragement. It is, in fact, their witness via the works of the Spirit which convert the Jewish believers into a broader understanding of the missio Dei.

I think this has become a “loaded” question with the introduction of calvinist/reformed theology and certainly before that as well. In a world where you are emerging from the one church – one world system of the medieval catholic church into the Reformation, where you can’t just count your neighbor as a “christian” anymore, you start to wonder just how you can tell who is part of the “elect”.

This was a question of life or death importance at that time, actually. If you were not following Jesus in a particularly prescribed manner, there could be severe consequences. Again, I’m just throwing this out here and don’t have the time or space or energy to be as detailed as I would like on this subject. Suffice it to say, it became very important to know who was whom.

This changed the nature of the question, though. Being “chosen” meant you were something that someone else was not. It became a way of deciphering who was in and who was out. So, when you heard someone say, “I am chosen.” or, “We are chosen.” the implication was “I/We am/are chosen, and you are not.” Certainly “outsiders” hear it this way, but I think we hear it that way ourselves. “I am chosen, so I need to start discerning who’s in and who’s out of my club.” It also carries this religious pride with the notion of being chosen, as in we are the prime choices and others are not.

There’s a Newbigin quote I have to dig up from somewhere, but I would like us to start thinking of being chosen as “being chosen to do something for God.” Your life has been given meaning and just like Abraham, God is calling you to do soemthing with your life.

You have a mission, you’ve been chosen to do that mission. Go do it, and don’t worry about who else is “chosen,” God’s taking care of that. Chosen does not mean “I’m better,” it means “I’ve to a job to do.”

We’re moving on to the New Testament now for some further examples of God breaking down barriers and using the “outsiders” to share His message. Again, for lack of a better word I’m using “Reflexivity” to describe this phenomenon. As I see it, Mission/the Word of God/Revelation comes from God, but our previous concept has been that it comes from God, then channels through us, the “people of God” and moves on to the outside world.

There are times, however, when we need to hear something from God and have closed our ears or even our gates to what He is trying to say. I think one of the biggest reasons for this is that we continually narrow who we consider a “person of God” but we’ll go more into this later. As Jesus said, the message will come through, even the rocks will cry out. Here is the next part of the reflexivity paper regarding Acts 10:

This story illustrates the reflexivity of mission in a succinct and clear manner. Mission is flowing two ways, from Cornelius to Peter as well as from Peter to Cornelius. Who is the “person of God” in this passage? I contend that both men are men of God, with pieces of a larger puzzle. It takes their interaction to learn the truth about God showing no partiality to a specific people group (Acts 10:34-35).

God is Central

The central notion to this passage is that God is doing a new thing and wishes to teach his people more about himself. This seems to be, however, a lesson that Jesus’ early followers were not getting on their own (and still struggled with vehemently after Peter and Cornelius’ meeting). It was not a part of their missionary practice or strategy, so God sends a missionary to the circumcised believers in the form of Cornelius.

Lesslie Newbigin relates that most of the advances he has seen during missionary experience mirror the Peter and Cornelius model rather than a strategic plan of sharing and witness. About this passage Newbigin states, “It was not part of any missionary ‘strategy’ devised by the church. It was the free and sovereign deed of God, who goes before his church” (Newbigin 1995:64). The people of God, if they are to truly be his people, must follow the Spirit wherever he leads, even (and especially) when he leads us where we do not want to go.

Peter is Converted

Charles Van Engen argues that the true conversion in this passage belongs to Peter and not to Cornelius. Much like Jesus’ reinstatement of Peter on the beach in John 21, Peter is told three times to rise and eat, not deeming unholy what God has made clean (Van Engen 2004:137-39). Likewise, the whole of the circumcised believing community are receiving the revelation that they may no longer remain a simple sect of contemporary Judaism (Glasser 2003:271). God is establishing a new understanding of and in his people, and the borders formerly drawn are no longer applicable. Indeed, one is led to wonder if these borders ever were.

Peter is given the extremely visceral illustration of the household of Cornelius being seized by the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The same Spirit has fallen on this Roman household, and there can be no doubt that what God has given to the Jewish believers is for the whole world. Helen Barrett Montgomery quotes Goethe in pointing out that the Bible is the Book of nations, not simply Israel, and Peter is given a first-hand lesson in this reality (Montgomery 2000:7).

Who is the Missionary?

It is important here also to note that Cornelius sent for Peter, and not vice versa. Both men are engaging in cross-cultural mission, but Cornelius, by the prompting of the angel, is the initiator of the two. This is not simply an example of centripetal mission. Cornelius, a God-fearing Roman, is responding to the prompting of God to send for Peter. It is not a matter of Peter living a certain life in public, which is in turn attractive to certain people.

God is seeking to lead his people into a new area of mission understanding and uses a surprising person in order to accomplish this task. The two servants and the soldier Cornelius sends to seek out Peter are later identified as sent by God himself (Acts 10:20). It would seem, then, that this group is the second set of cross-cultural missionaries in Acts (Phillip and the Ethiopian being the first example). Mission in this passage is revealed to be reflexive because there is no simple receiver of the message. The revelation is dynamic, not static, and both Peter and Cornelius are giving and receiving. Both men are converted in their way, and it is clear that God has torn down a cultural wall built by his people.

Through Jonah God redeems and stirs a revival in Ninevah, the most hated center of oppression and conquest at the time. God sweeps through the overbearing evil empire and Jonah cannot stand it. It’s UNFAIR! I’m sure I’ll come back to this over and over again, but it’s true: God’s actions are not “fair”. Those oppressors do not get what they deserve. God showers His grace on a wholly undeserving people (not to mention this is happening in the Old Testament, the one with the “mean” God, but that’s another story for another day).

God spares a nation deserving of destruction or at the very least “comeuppance” and Jonah is having none of it. What really surprises me is that Jonah is not surprised. He was so convinced of the overly loving goodness of God, that Jonah ran away at the first sign this scandalous God was going to share that love with his (and His) enemies. God even goes to the depths of the sea to get His point across. “See! I knew you would do this!” Jonah accuses (I’m paraphrasing here). He just knew God was itching to bless someone who obviously did not deserve it.

In writing down these thoughts for the blog, this story is pretty much my central thesis. God is working in the whole world, and “the whole world” even means “that guy/girl/nation/etc. I hate.” How crazy is this story in the midst of a collection of teachings about God dealing with His people? What does it say that one of our  most beloved story to this day is all about God moving outside of the fences the Israelites (and even the Ninevites) put up?

We must work to assume a posture that is both receptive and active in this world. It’s that “Following God” workbook all over again: Our lives are filled with watching where God is working and following Him there. So simple, but I’ve spent the last decade and then some trying to understand what that means, and I know there so much more to learn.

There is another aspect of this story that I would like to focus on, though. Jethro is not a Jew. He’s not traveling to the Promised Land, and as far as we know he never makes it there, either. But this is what fascinates me about the story of God as laid out in the Bible. There are these hints that our God is working among the entire world, even as we follow this one group.

Now, again, I must be clear that I am talking about when Yahweh reveals himself, not Baal, or even Ra or Ganesh. There are many gods but only one Yahweh, only one creator as revealed to us through His son Jesus the Messiah. Jesus never said, I am one way among many to get to God. If we take his message seriously, then we take Jesus at his word.

With that said, however, none of us should be so bold as to assume we know or have captured all of what God is doing or every way that Jesus is drawing men and women to himself. It’s Jesus and only Jesus, but he is shockingly moving among the people of the world revealing God’s truth to those who would hear it.

With that said, here is the next excerpt from the paper:

Exodus 18:17-27 – Jethro

Jethro has already been identified as a priest of Midian, who has proclaimed the wonders of Yahweh (cf. Exodus 18:10-11, Kaiser 2000:40). His proclamation of the excellence of God and shared worship with Moses and Aaron is an indication of the work God has already been doing in Jethro’s life. It is his counsel to Moses, though, that shows a sharing of the good news with the Jewish people.

Good News and Fatherly Advice

It is more than simple church growth advice Jethro dispenses to Moses, it is words of life to a leader called to a task beyond his ability. Jethro, a God-fearing priest is able to serve two distinct roles in the life of Moses and by extension the whole community. Namely, he serves as outside consultant and substitute Father.

Outside Consultant

Mission happens in a very “earthy” and seemingly secular way in this passage. The advice given, however, is almost indisputably from God. God sends Jethro to the Hebrew community for several reasons. First, Jethro has grown up a free man and not as a slave. Facing an overwhelming amount of freedom for the first time in several generations, the people of God are paralyzed into inaction.

Jethro is able to help this group take its first steps into nationhood by dividing the situation into sizable pieces of engagement. The Hebrews have spent decades being told what to do at every step, and it takes a godly leader of people, this priest of Midian, to help lead them out of their self-imposed slavery. A Gentile must bring the solution from the outside, because the answer is not to be found within the boundaries of God’s people.

Father Figure

There is another role Jethro is playing in this passage that should not be overlooked. God has provided Moses the orphan with a father to look out for his needs. If only for a brief time, Jethro is able to take his son-in-law aside and give him advice that will last him the rest of his life. This role could have just as easily been played by a Hebrew, but the biblical record does not reveal this type of interaction. The Jewish community gives suggestions (at times too many) to Moses at every turn, but only Jethro offers godly advice.

Again, it is no coincidence that Jethro is a Midianite. He fulfills a specific call by God (I believe) to set the people of God on the right path. An orphaned people find a father for a time, but the lesson of the desert is reliance on God, and Jethro returns to his home, his mission fulfilled. Even as they are consciously trying to avoid contact, God sends a word to them, reaffirming his love for his children.

I’m continuing on with the last post about how we view the story of God as presented in the Bible. Last time I concentrated more on the thought that “the more personal the story, the more universal the application or emotion.” So, God chooses a man, and his tribe and we follow this group through the centuries. We hone in on this group so we can fully explore what God’s relationship with this people looks like. Not only are they God’s chosen people, but they become an example for us today so we get a feeling for how Yahweh interacts with those He calls His own.

So, to continue this theme and expand on it, I’m going to throw up some parts of a paper I wrote at school on something I’m calling the reflexivity of mission. Basically, “mission” is the spreading of God’s word to all the nations, but we can’t assume that the message flows simply from us outward. Many times it flows back to us as well. Several times in the Bible there are examples of “outsiders” having a message for God’s people. We can’t ever forget that the message is from God, not from us, and we have to always be attentive to what He is saying, no matter who brings the message to us.

Here’s the excerpt:

Mission in the Old Testament appears to be a rather new discovery in the life of the church. Although God’s concern for all nations has always been a prominent feature of the Old Testament, it is nevertheless seen as a “less” missionary text than the New Testament. It is important to note the cross-cultural existence of the early Jewish people, and to note that there are examples of non-Israelites giving insight to what we commonly refer to as the people of God.

Genesis 14:18-24 – Melchizedek

Melchizedek is certainly one of the most puzzled-over figures in the Old Testament. Where did he come from and how does he seem to know so much of God? It is obvious to even the casual observer that God has blessed Abram through Melchizedek, but there are two aspects of the King-Priest of Salem that deserve closer attention.

Melchizedek as a Believing Gentile

Walter Kaiser is quick to note the importance of even the existence of a person such as Melchizedek. To Kaiser, Melchizedek is a beneficiary of the “outreach of the grace of God,” and a person who was “coming to know the One who would later be called the Messiah, or Jesus” (Kaiser 2000:40). Arthur Glasser reiterates this theme by stating that all those on mission should be alert for “Melchizedek people” in their travels (Glasser 2003:63).

It is important to note that Melchizedek is also set in contrast to the King of Sodom in this passage as well. It is not every Gentile who should be welcomed as such, but the ones who are obviously consumed with the love and grace of God. The assessment should not be made on outward appearance, or ethnicity, but rather by what the Spirit reveals.

Trading Names of God

There is also a trading of names, where Abram and Melchizedek seem to commune in a way that is not seen before in the book of Genesis. Melchizedek is a priest of the God Most High (El Elyon), which is a name at times associated with Baal (Glasser 2003:115). It is obvious, however, that Melchizedek is worshipping the same God and hoping in the same Messiah as Abram. Melchizedek praises blesses Abram by God Most High, and Abram in turn shares God’s personal name, Yahweh, with Melchizedek.

There is a trading of blessings and Abram’s understanding of who God is is enlarged by Melchizedek’s presence. Here is a Gentile obviously following Yahweh, and Abram accepts him and his gifts. The name God Most High is ascribed to Yahweh, as opposed to Baal, and Abram reveals that God’s true name is Yahweh, who is the possessor of both heaven and earth.

Mission is reflexive here in the sharing of information and blessings between these two followers of God. One gets the impression that Melchizedek has been called just as Abram has been called, but one story has been preserved for posterity and one has not. We must not allow these small incidents to pass us by without the scrutiny they deserve.

It’s always seemed a little unfair, of course. Why Israel? Why not some other nation? A common theme is that God is showing His might by choosing a small nation, a small tribe. Thus, His actions are even more miraculous by what He accomplishes through them. (Sort of like Elijah demanding multiple buckets of water so the fire is even more spectacular)

Well, first of all, if you’re looking for things to be fair, you may need to look towards a different religion. Our concept of grace pretty much negates things being fair. We don’t get what we deserve, any of us.

But let me throw this out for consideration: while it’s not a completely random choice, God choosing Abraham and building from his tribe a nation, and working through them to share Himself with this world is much more about God and much less about Israel.

How better to show how He works with all of us than to show how He works with one of us? By focusing on Abraham’s family and Israel, we immediately put ourselves in their place. I’ve never been so afraid of being killed and robbed that I claimed that my wife was my sister, or had to walk my son up a mountain to what may be his doom, but somehow the immediacy and reality of such a situation moves something inside of me.

So God starts with Abraham because it’s time to start. The story has to have a beginning. I’m not implying any sort of randomness in God’s choosing, but I think we get too narrow in our concept of what God is doing in the world. I don’t want to go too far in saying just any old person could have fit the bill, but I do want us to take a moment and consider that God is trying to get his message across to us.

Even the fact that Jesus came as a Jew who was a messiah to the Jewish people, and was indeed crucified by them as well, is an example of what God is doing. Jesus didn’t come with a charter to the first century United Nations, worrying about how he could tailor a message to the entire world. He came as a back woods prophet with a specific message to a specific people. He preaches a message centered on the traditions of a smallish country in the middle of an empire, and somehow this message has resonated throughout the world for two thousand years.

My second point is this: God is working through us today and through the church and our church, but we do not contain Him. He is always doing the unexpected. Too often we’re like Jonah, on board with God’s plans until He decides to redeem our enemies. But like I said, it’s unfair. Even those who wish to destroy us can be saved.

Jesus has a mission to this specific group, but he’s always pushing them. Not only pushing them to take care of their own societal outcasts, but also hinting at the fact that the relationship Israel holds so dear is not theirs to control. Jesus keeps speaking to Gentiles and Samaritans, infuriating all of his followers who are convinced that he is their messiah, and when he comes to power they’ll be like John and James, ready to sit at the right and left hand of the new King of Israel.

The stories that have led me to start thinking about this are of Melchizedek and Jethro in the Old Testament and of Cornelius and the Jerusalem Council in Acts. In these stories and elsewhere, people outside the fold seem to have insight into what God is doing and even have advice for the “people of God.” I’ll spend this week going into these four stories, but please jump in with comments/questions/arguments at any time.