I read a text argument between two Christians a couple days ago. They were debating Obama’s stimulus plan. After a number of retorts, one of them said, "Jesus wouldn’t be a republican!". Although it may not have been her intent, it sounded as if she was claiming that he would be a Democrat instead.

But Jesus’ wouldn’t be either.

It reminded me of the passage in Joshua just before the Israelites go up and defeat Jericho. Joshua sees an angel of the Lord standing a ways off. This was their interaction in Joshua 5:13-14:

"When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold. a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" And he said, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come."

Most scholars agree that the man Joshua spoke to was Jesus, and here from his very own lips we see him disregard both political options. "Are you for us, or for our enemies?" He disregards both and simply says, "No".

Why is this? Because God only sides with man inasmuch as man has sided with God. God is on his own side. Think about it, God would fight for the Israelites, provided they were following him in obedience. Only two chapters later in Joshua 7, God brings Israel’s defeat at Ai because they failed to obey him.

So the question of whether or not Jesus would be a Republican or a Democrat is moot. He would be neither. The better question is whether Republicans or Democrats are on God’s side. And, because God’s side entails much more than what we do but also our motives and affections, it can conclusively be said that neither Democrat nor Republican side altogether with him.

For the politically minded Christian, this is crucial to remember. We are Christians first and foremost, and any other personal traits second.

Solomon says:

"I am dark, but lovely." (Song of Solomon 1:5)

I say:

"I am filthy, but somehow loved."

Seems that me and Solomon share an important sentiment. This is not a matter of reason, but of reality–which might be the hardest part.

Some friends had a discussion last night about biblical hermeneutics. Biblical hermeneutics is basically the science of interpreting biblical text. It’s the process of going from reading what is written to understanding what is meant. Subconsciously, we do this any time we read anything. It requires a bit more intention when we’re reading a text that’s 1900 years old.

I’m not going to detail on the hermeneutic process that I use. If you want to study that, I’d encourage you to do so. There’s lots good resources available.

What I wanted to mention was one critical part of anyone’s biblical hermeneutic. It’s the piece that ensures we are not the Gnostics from the second and third centuries. I’m speaking of the Single Meaning point of any good biblical hermeneutic. It’s also sometimes called The Single Sense.

The idea is that when the author was writing, he had a single meaning, or sense, in mind. Hermeneutics seeks to discover that meaning. If the author was discussing money, then the meaning has to do with money. If the author was talking about faith, then the meaning has to do with faith. We can’t derive meaning beyond what the author intended.

Of course this varies slightly based on what type of text is being read (i.e., poetry, history, prophecy, etc).

Here’s another explanation:

"The basic meaning of a passage is the single sense evident to any reader who allows the words their ordinary meanings and who expects the grammar and syntax to shape and combine these meanings in a normal fashion. We need not await a mystical revelation of a truer sense dependent on allusions hidden to ordinary readers, the numerical values of letters, esoteric definitions, or other mumbo jumbo. No spiritual application, typological analysis, or theology derived from the text is legitimate unless it is faithful to this single sense. In other words, no larger meaning may be construed which distorts what the words actually say." (a)

Make sense? A lot of people will have problems with this. Bear with me.

A lot of people stop there. Their pursuit of understanding the Word of God stops with the author’s intended meaning. But it shouldn’t. Because while all scripture has a single meaning, it has many applications.

What I mean is this: The implications of the authors meaning will apply to you or your community in many different ways.

The author may be talking about money, but with the guiding of the Holy Spirit, you might find there is an important application about faith there. Or perhaps the author is talking about faith, you may find an important application about your use of money there. These are legitimate applications, although not necessarily the meaning of the verse.

The important thing to remember is that the personal application we receive from scripture will never be entirely different from it’s meaning and absolutely never in contradiction to the whole of scripture. The single meaning becomes the defense against heretical applications.

Christians should be faithful in seeking the single meaning of scripture, and patient and prayerful in waiting for the personal application of it. Both are absolutely essential, but seeking the meaning should always come first.

References:
a. http://www.themoorings.org/doctrine/issues/hermeneutics/intent.html

And we’re all accustomed to putting food out for it.

Even though it brings diseases, kills wildlife and torments the house pets. It’s invited back twice a day by the fresh bowl of food placed out on the stoop.

Proverbs 27:20 says,

"Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied, and never satisfied are the eyes of man."

The lust of man’s heart and mind will never be satisfied. Like a stray cat, as long as we feed it, it will stick around. It will never say that it’s had enough and move on. I’m convinced that starvation is the only way to rid ourselves of stray cats and bothersome sins.

May the grace of Jesus Christ expand through his Holy Spirit to strengthen us to deny our desires to feed the sin waiting for us.

Romans 15:1-2 says:

"We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up."

This is an interesting perspective on grace shared between believers. Unfortunately it’s not regarded very often.

The context of this verse, if you go back into chapter 14, Paul starts out exhorting them not to quarrel over opinions with those of weaker faith. He uses a standard example of Jewish dietary laws. He explains that the weaker in faith is still constrained under these laws, but for the sake of defending their faith, the stronger in faith ought to bear with them.

Later he goes as far as to say that we ought to constrain ourselves under their weakness for their sake (v.14:15).

Dietary laws might be the epitome of what some consider fringe issues. In a community of Christians, this is probably something akin to proper baptism procedures, or tithing issues.

But realistically, this should probably be applied to any non-salvation issue. Because people are not saved by good doctrine. They’re saved by grace, through faith in the work of Jesus Christ on their behalf. Therefore, there is only a minimal amount of doctrine actually necessary for faith.

Unfortunately, we’re not going to agree on who in the church would qualify as the "weaker" in faith. But we don’t necessarily need to. Because underneath what Paul is saying is that grace between us is really what’s important:

"For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord." (v.14:8)

Now, this doesn’t exclude discussing biblical truths, in some contexts even debating, for the sake of coming to deeper understandings of what we believe and why. But it does mean that we must do it with grace and love for one another and remember that good doctrine is not what makes us brothers and sisters, it’s faith in the one Lord, Jesus Christ.

I’ve written on this topic in some reasonable length in the past, but I continue today because of a conversation I had last night.

Orthodoxy is a word you’re probably familiar with. It basically means, "religious beliefs". Orthopraxy on the other had is a less used word, but in the same vein. It’s usually used to mean "religious practices". Although most wont use these words, all serious Christians have to wrestle with these two issues eventually.

What do I believe, and what do I do. This is how I will use these words.

The trouble is, that over that last century, namely in America, orthodoxy has been front and center with orthopraxy as an optional side. Many people grew massive intellects surrounding the bible and spiritual things while failing to exhibit even some of the most basic of Christian duties, such as love and compassion.

Now there begins a resurgence in people’s fervor to follow Jesus and this is naturally going to result in a desire to actually do the word of God. But there’s also a dangerous swing involved. It’s the swing to abandon orthodoxy for orthopraxy. And, it’s more dangerous than the swing to glory in orthodoxy. I’ll explain why.

Orthodoxy, good theology, thorough doctrinal training, is not sufficient grounds for salvation. Only grace, through faith is sufficient grounds. However, Christian orthodoxy can’t exist for very long apart from the Word of God. Although some may become consumed with Christian thought and neglect to do God’s Word, there still remains there the hope that the two edged Sword of God’s Word may cut them open.

In fact, this is in some manner what we’re now experiencing and what’s now motivating a resurgence in love for Christ and the swing toward orthopraxy. For decades we’ve had orthodox doctrines telling us about God’s nature and his will and now all of a sudden people are being cut by it. But, that change in heart is necessarily motivated by the intrinsic presence of God’s word in Christian orthodoxy. It’s able to call us to orthopraxy.

The same however cannot be said of the other hand. Good works apart from orthodoxy is humanism. Humanism will not call us into God’s Word for releif, and faith, and hope. Therefore, for a generation to abandon orthodoxy for orthopraxy is unbelievably dangerous–especially for future generations. They may hold great virtue in human and social service, but fail to believe in the Jesus of the bible.

But here’s the reality no true Christian exists without holding orthodoxy in his head and orthopraxy in his hands. In the Christian life, they are not mutually exclusive. They cannot exist without one another. Both are equally important, but in the right order.

For example, Jesus’ birth and Jesus’ death are equally important events. However, Jesus’ birth had to come first. In the same way, in a Christian, orthodoxy and orthopraxy are equally necessary, but orthodoxy comes first. Why? Because orthopraxy without orthodoxy is humanism. Therefore, in order for our serving to be spiritual, we must first have faith in at least the most basic of Christian beliefs.

This is what I tell people when they argue that we’ve become puffed up in our intellects. I tell them you only see the problem because of the knowledge you have in God’s Word which calls you to greater things than a big intellect. Our pursuit of God in his Word with our minds can never be condemned, only our failure to respond with our hands to what we find.

When it comes to an evangelistic lifestyle, we usually think of it in a kind of self-centered way. It has to do with what I am doing and the way that I am doing it and before whom I do it. But the reality is that an evangelistic lifestyle is a vast web of interconnected parts, of which you only have real influence over about 1  in 2 billion.

By evangelistic lifestyle, I mean living life in such a way that the spiritual conditions of unbelievers around you hold a high priority. Choosing words wisely, constantly remembering their need for the savior and affecting your actions accordingly.

As I was reading in Psalms today, David writes something that got me thinking about the evangelistic lifestyle: Psalm 69:6:

"Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
   O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
   O God of Israel."

Now let me say outright, the thoughts this verse provoked are not the context of David’s words. This is part of an entreaty to God not to allow him to fall for the sake of the faithful who would suffer because of it. However, I think that my thought can be found here, at least at some level anyways.

What occurred to me as I was reading is that almost no one judges anything in isolation. I mean that people rarely assess anything based entirely on itself. Someone might have a poor opinion of a good movie, based on the main actors bad performance in another movie. Often people want nothing to do with church, because of the church they went to growing up. I contend hat it’s rare for someone to form an opinion of anything based entirely on whatever it is before them.

If this is true, then when we hope to represent our Lord to those around us, they’re not going to judge us in isolation. They’re going to judge us first through the lens of about 2 billion other Christians on the planet (or at least the group they’re most exposed to) and what they’re doing.

Therefore, the evangelistic-lifestyle is vastly larger and more complex than simply what I do or don’t do.

This probably falls somewhere between discouraging and pacifying. Discouraging because it would seem that there’s no hope in swaying the lost because of the awful conduct of Christians historically and currently. And pacifying because being such a small peice of something much larger makes one feel like making any real change is impossible.

But, these things are only true if you remain in the me-centered type of evangelistic lifestyle I mentioned in the beginning. If indeed we’re a part of a web which helps form public opinion and that web is muddying up your personal ministry, then by all means, be discouraged. But, it’s not me-centered. It can’t be.

See, while we engage in ministry day to day, living our faith, we’re not only connected to this web of culture-opinion setters, we’re part of someone else’s web too.

When we stop for dinner on the way home, we might be tired or stressed out. If we fail to represent our Lord rightly, then we may be hindering someone else’s ministry. Perhaps that server is in some other Christian’s sphere of ministry. By failing to love as the Lord loves, we may have placed a block in another Christians evangelistic efforts.

Of course, in a perfect world, it wouldn’t be like this. People would make their decisions about Jesus based on Jesus, not us. But then again if this were a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to tell people about Jesus at all.

So, when it comes to the evangelistic lifestyle it’s important that we remember that our ministry is about as big as the entire body of Christians, at least in a local sense. And, in the same way that they can make ministry difficult for us, we make ministry difficult for them. This is another excellent reason for us to act very cautiously at all times, for the sake of our own ministry and for the sake of someone else who may come after us.