Merry Xmas...

A little "PS" to my "Why I Don't Hate Santa Claus" post...I was just going to add it in, but I figured it was worth its own post.

I use the phrase "Xmas" quite a bit, much to the chagrin of many around me. But just in case anyone was wondering, the usage of the word "Xmas" has nothing to do with "taking "Christ" out of Christmas." For at least 1000 years, the Greek letter "X" (pronounced "kai") has been used to denote the word "Christ," being that it is the first letter in the word "Christ." We see it on the ol' Christian Fish that so many of us sport on our cars, represented by a Greek acronym that spells out "IXOYE," which when pronounced is the Greek is pronounced "icthus" and is the Greek word for "fish," but as an acronym stands for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior."

Even in earlier years, in the 15th through 17th Centuries, the words "Christians" and "Christianity" were written as "Xians" and "Xianity." In an even more interesting twist, back in the 16 and 1700's, the name "Christine" and "Christopher" were traditionally spelled "Xene" and "Xopher." The name "Xena," as in "Xena the Princess Warrior" is actually a mispronunciation of what her real name should be: "Christina the Princess Warrior." Not quite as cool though, I must say (of course her parents can pronounce her name however they want, but the traditional way to pronounce "Xena" is "Christina").

In Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches, the symbol called the "labarum" is a mixture of the Greek letters Chi (X) and Rho (P), and is used on vestments, artwork, literature, and carvings as a symbol that represents Jesus Christ.

The point of all of this? None, really. However I do find that Christmas is just a little more enjoyable when we aren't worrying about how people spell "Christmas" and whether or not they take their kids to see Santa Claus or if their favorite Christmas Carol is either "O Holy Night" or "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer."

Fellow Xians, enjoy your freedom in X this Xmas. RelaX a bit.

(Original Posting: December 18, 2008)

Why I Don't Hate Santa Claus...

It's always funny coming around to this time of the year. It's always a great thing to look forward to family, friends, good food, and most importantly, celebrating the birth of Christ. But with it comes lots of funny moments. One popular thing I see in the church in general is a popular and even seemingly assumed or expected demonization of poor ol' Saint Nick. Now, like most adults, we make plenty of jokes about Santa and the elves and Rudolph and all that great stuff, but man, sometimes I see a real disdain for Santa, as if we hold him responsible for single handedly ruined the meaning of Christmas. This is nothing new, as a matter of fact a predominantly Christian distaste for Santa goes back as far as even the 16th Century. But it's funny to me how even today we easily ignore how much we ourselves put so much stock in buying gifts and holiday sales and family drama and arguing over where we spend Christmas and making sure we utilize our Christmas vacation time and making sure we get our Christmas bonus. But no, it's definitely none of those things that have taken the focus of Christmas away from Christ; no, it's Satan Claus...it's all his fault. To add to it, the largest population of these anti-Santa folks are Christians, and most of them would expect me, a pastor, to be part of leading the War on Santa.

But I want to tell you why I don't hate Santa...and actually why I like him. Granted, in my house, my sons are 5 and 2 1/2 years old, and we are not doing the whole "Santa comes down the chimney on Christmas" thing. For that matter we aren't even going to pretend that he is a real, living guy up at the North Pole. Even now, Micah, who is 5, only knows him as "the Christmas Guy." He doesn't even know his name. But I do actually like the idea of Santa being a part of our Christmas tradition in some way.

See, Santa Claus was a slow morph from, of course, Saint Nicholas. Nicholas was from a place called Myra, which is modern day Turkey. He lived in the 4th century, practically a contemporary to Saint Patrick of Ireland. Nicholas, from an early age, became obsessed with his faith in Christ, and he lived it out to the most extreme degree. Through the years, sure his legend changed and was modified for every culture, and eventually somewhere in Scandinavian Europe, his name was translated and eventually was anglicized into "Santa Claus," the name "Santa" of course being "Saint" and "Claus" being a variant of "Nicholas" (you can see the relation of the name "Claus" in the latter part of the name "Nicholas" in the form of "cholas").

The tradition of Santa being a gift-giver comes from the real life Nicholas. He was literally a "Secret Santa" as he would often put coins and gifts in people's shoes which were left on their doorstep at night. He would leave food on doorsteps of families that had need. And in his most notable act, he bought the dowry (a large "down-payment" for marriage so to speak given to the father of a young girl from an interested man as a guarantee of marriage) of three young girls so that they wouldn't have to be pushed into a life of prostitution.

Nicholas did this all out of his passion for Christ and the great gift of salvation that Nicholas so appreciated. Sadly, though he died peacefully at age 76, his legacy itself became a martyr as we've put to death the great testimony of his faith as we blame him for the secularization of Christmas.

I know that December 25th isn't Jesus' real birthday. I know that His birthday has nothing to do with sleigh bells or gingerbread men or candy canes or wintery wonderlands. But I live in 21st Century America, and Santa, to be honest, is actually one of the few true remaining relics of the real Christmas Story. Would Saint Nicholas be bummed that he's been so marginalized as a non-faith based figure at Christmastime and minimized and pigeonholed as a gluttonous home invader who holes himself up in a barren wasteland 364 days per year? I'm sure he would be.

But, boy, I gotta be honest, if it were me and I was given the unbelievable privilege to have my testimony of charity for the cause of Christ be told throughout the world for centuries to come, sure I would be bummed to know that it gets secularized and turned into a marketing ploy, however more than that, I would be devastated to know that my future fellow believers in Christ would be the front runners in voiding the many deeds and miracles I did in the name of Christ for the sake of the poor and needy in my community. I would be so saddened to know that my name and legacy would become vilified in the eyes of believers. My hope would be that my future fellow believers would protect my legacy and bring Christ back to the center of my story. Imagine, if you will, the name "Billy Graham" leaving a bad taste in the mouth of Christians in 500 years. What a travesty if those believers allow that to happen and throw the baby out with the bathwater because culture begins to use the Billy's name to sell some more products and then make it as if Billy is the worst thing to happen to Christianity. It really just doesn't make any sense.

So, instead of stringing good ol' Saint Nick up the flagpole, I rather like to appreciate what he did in his life to honor Christ. Imagine if instead of condemning Santa to our kids, we actually taught them what he really represented, and used his example to teach our kids at Christmas time. Imagine if we actually took heed to Saint Nick's heart as he had a desire as Paul did for us to "follow me as I follow Christ." Imagine the great conversations our kids would have at their schools when the Santa topic gets brought up. Our kids would be telling other kids not even just what Christmas is all about, but even what SANTA is all about! I want to raise my kids teaching them that yes, the Christmas message is about God's gift to the world, but also that the message of Santa is the message of Christ: an undeserved, unexpected gift.

Well anyway, time for me to get off the soapbox, I gotta go finish up my Christmas shopping.

(Original Post: December 17, 2008)

Dreams...

So, I want to share with you a sequence of dreams that had a big impact on my life and gave a needed push of faith as we stepped out to start theMovement back in 2001. Since we're going through Genesis chapters 37-41 right now, and very specifically, we are seeing this idea of dreams pop up pretty substantially, I thought it would be fitting to share with you how the Lord used dreams to speak directly to me.

Around November of 2000 (a little under a year before we started the church in my living room, and about 7 months or so before it was even a THOUGHT in our minds) I had a dream. A vivid, troubling dream. Here is how it went:

I was in a warehouse, seemingly made of metal as I could see light peering through holes and inconsistencies, however it was very dark in there. I was climbing a ladder to a second story, and as I was climbing, another figure was descending on another ladder. He was dark, clothing and all, and I remember just glancing at him. As I got to the top I found something disturbing: Jeremy's head.

Startled, and somehow knowing that the dark figure had done it and placed it here to hide, I grabbed the head and wanted to return it to Jeremy (one of those weird things we do in dreams!). I went down the ladder and out into the outside light. As I walked along, quickly I found Jeremy, but with a different head, a dark head that had been stitched on to his body. Not only that, but Jeremy was pushing a baby carriage with a baby in it. I gave him his head back.

And I woke up.

It bothered me for a few days. In my mind's eye, I would see a head here or there - in a wastebasket, in my closet - you know, like my mind just playing tricks on me. It bothered me so much I sought counsel, but I'll share those insights later...

Fast forward 7 months to about June-ish 2001. Through a series of events, the Lord reveals to Jeremy (and our pastor) that he is to start and lead a new church in San Marcos. During this time, much prayer is given to everyone interested to be involved, including, of course, me. Personally, I'm going through a lot right now, I'm engaged with a wedding coming up in a couple months (August 18, 2001), and the thought of starting a church would mean I would lose my job at my current church, not something you normally would be purposely doing right when you get married.

So in my (and really, all of our) struggles in faith for stepping out, we were debating on letting it cultivate for a year (the safe way) or starting immediately (the faith way, and also the way our pastor was pushing us toward). This was a big issue for us: spend the year planning or kick it off in 3 months!

During this course, I had a set of dreams:

In the first dream, I was in what was like a field with an airplane hangar in the center, as well as what seemed like a high school track surrounding the perimeter, and a tall, 15 foot fence around the very outside perimeter. A group of us, led by me (though I was in their midst, not out front), were running toward the fence, hoping to escape something. As we got toward the track, what I remember as being "Hummer-ish" pulled up with dark figures in it wielding guns. Quickly, I turned the folks around and we started running away. A few people had effectively climbed the fence, but those of us that turned around, the enemy started opening fire. I was hit in the back of the head, and in the dream I could feel the warmth of the blood in the back of my head.

And then I woke up.

That day I couldn't shake the dream, and to my surprise, that night I had another dream:

I was walking down a suburban street at dusk. At the corner there was a house with warm, inviting lighting on the inside with people hanging out having a good time. Before going in, I looked up the street and saw my wife standing in the middle of the street with a man approaching her. As I walked toward her, just before I got to her, the man put a gun in her mouth and shot her.

And then I woke up.

Now, of course, I was really scared. I went to bed that night terrified, wondering if I would have another dream. And I did:

I was at a football stadium with some people. It was somber amongst my group, but the crowd was excited. There was a platform, like a graduation platform, in the middle of the field. On it was a handful of people. Also on it was a guillotine. Knelt down at the guillotine and tied down was Jeremy.

In a moment, the guillotine came down and beheaded my brother. The crowd roared with excitement.

As we were leaving, the crowd was murmuring, "it's about time they got that guy." In a moment of frustration, I would turn to people and say "you have no idea what that man has done for this world."

And then I woke up.

That day, I had to work my other job delivering the San Diego Reader. Terrified, I sought the Lord all day long as I drove around, when a funny thing happened. On my second delivery, my contact lenses blurred like crazy. Now, this isn't totally abnormal, but it came on fast. Being a bit of a frugal type guy, I was irritated because I knew I had some saline solution at home, and I would rather just wait to get home than have to go into Vons and but a new bottle for $6. But they really blurred up.

So, my second stop happened to be a Vons. I went in, deciding to just pay the price, grabbed the solution, paid, and as SOON as I walked out the front door, my lenses cleared up instantly. I looked at the bottle and just thought "you gotta be kidding me."

As I hopped in my truck, the Lord spoke to me. "It's easier to wait, but if you pay the cost by going now, I'll give you clear vision."

BAM!!! I had to sit there in my truck in the fire zone in front of Vons with my hazard lights on, partly repenting for a lack of faith, partly thanking God for speaking to me! Excited, I rushed through my deliveries so I could get to lifeGroup that night at Steve Maddox's house. We had already planned on all of us meeting to pray on whether or not we should move forward now or wait a year.

I got there, shared my story, that I thought we should go now, and we were all united in moving forward. Steve, being Steve, added that "the Lord was trying to "contact" you so He could give you the "solution."

What a clown.

Anyway...

I also shared with them my dreams...or rather, nightmares. Here's what Steve had to say about them:

First of all, all three dreams were head injuries. Me to the back of the head, Katie in her mouth, Jeremy of course being beheaded. This was possibly symbolic of our potential authority being attacked (we were being questioned a lot on our "legitimacy," being so young, in starting a church). But looking at each one specifically became telling.

With the dream about me, I was leading from amidst people, which is, by nature, more my style of leadership, as I'm not as much of an out front type of guy. We were obviously being imprisoned, and it was my job to help people escape this imprisonment. The dark figures in the Hummers, of course, were the enemy trying to stop it.

At this time, one of our hopes and visions was to find a deeper freedom in worship and escape, more or less, "religious" worship. This was a daunting task for me, one that I really had felt a bit of pressure with. The thought of starting a church and pushing the envelope with music style and approach in order to reach an un-churched crowd and usher them to the throne room of God without the pre-tense of religion that has turned them off for so long as a scary move, well outside my comfort zone. According to this dream, the enemy knew my weak point, and assumed he could thwart my desires by attacking those insecurities by waging a battle on my mind, hoping to discourage me from even trying.

For the dream Katie was in, there was an interesting interpretation, one that has been backed up by another dream that she had that I think spoke the same thing. Here she was, outside of fellowship for whatever reason. Everyone was indoors, having a fine time, and she was in the street. She was attacked through her mouth.

My wife has a great deal of wisdom. She has a great deal of compassion and love for people as well. She also is very good at not beating around the bush and speaking directly, but in love. She has always had a desire to teach and share the great things the Lord speaks to her, and I think she has a gift for speaking directly the truths of God. But like many of us, insecurities can weigh us down. Here in this dream, the enemy was seeming to isolate her outside of the camp, for one so that he can deceive her, and for two to keep her from sharing her wisdom and insight with the camp. He then shot her in the mouth, to make sure she couldn't speak truth into people's lives.

In the dream with Jeremy, it was obvious that his was the most public as he would have the most public role and take the most criticism of all of us. The enemy did not like how much influence he would have in this community, so he, in the dream, was able to do away with him. This was a full decapitation, unlike mine and Katie's deaths, which was a real symbol of the enemy going for "the head" of this "movement," and after his authority.

In this meeting, we marveled at what the Lord was speaking, showing us that though the enemy's desire was to scare us and convince us that we're going down, the Lord was telling us to move forward, be aware of the enemies tactics, and move in faith.

So that night, to say the least, I was scared to go to bed, as I was CONVINCED that I would have a dream about Sunshine since the other 3 of us had already been targeted in my dreams.

To my pleasure, however, there was no dream. It was clear to me that since I had been seeking the Lord and got the answer (to move forward in faith), the dreams ceased. Thank You, Lord!


Now...here was the interesting thing about the dream Jeremy was in that sparked my thoughts: at the end of the dream as we were walking out of the stadium and people were commenting on how "we finally got him," I came to his defense to back him up.

Suddenly, I was reminded of the dream I had 7 months previous, where Jeremy had been decapitated and given a different head.

Rewind to a few days after that dream in November of 2000. Ron, our Associate Pastor (as well as the best man in my wedding), introduced me to a guy named Dan Ordman. I had not yet Steve Maddox yet, and Steve and Dan were friends, very gifted in their studies of dreams and such.

I sat with Dan after church and told him my dream. Here is what he shared with me:

The enemy (the dark figure climbing down the ladder) was trying to "steal" Jeremy's identity and hide it. Upon finding Jeremy, I saw that he was alive, however with another man's head, as well as pushing a baby stroller. During the next few months, as events unfolded for us to potentially start a church (which again, wasn't even a remote thought in our brains at this point), Jeremy had been dealing a lot with donning "Saul's armor."

If you aren't familiar with that phrase, it is used to describe David when he went to put on Saul's armor and it didn't fit. The picture is that God wants to do something unique in all of us and that we don't have to model ourselves after something else, but instead we can trust God to do what GOD wants to do uniquely in our lives.

In this dream, the enemy was trying to get Jeremy to not move forward in faith but rather rest and depend on the past, the way things had been shown to him, rather than push forward with the unique identity that God has given him.

The baby being pushed around was not a vision of a real pregnancy for him and Sunshine, but the Lord showing me that He would be birthing a new work or ministry in Jeremy's life. Again, this is 7 months before we even TALKED about planting a church, so we had no idea what this meant at the time.

The enemy however, doesn't want Jeremy to push around this new baby led by faith and a new work that will reach the un-churched in unconventional ways. The enemy would rather have us do the same ol' same ol', donning another man's identity and cookie cutter, seeker friendly ways. But this wasn't Jeremy, and it wasn't what the Lord wanted. And the great thing about this dream is that I was there to help him stay the course and not be swayed by the "easy way out" in "doing church." The Lord had brought me to the table to be a source of strength and encouragement so that we could move forward with God had uniquely given to us. I was there to find his "real" identity and make sure he stuck with that.

In the end, it turns out that the first dream I had in November 2000 was the sequel to the dreams in June 2001. I saw Jeremy AFTER the execution, and after coming to his defense in the crowd, I sought out to find where the enemy had stashed his head, desiring to return it to him.

Since then, all of this has come to pass. We have under fire left and right from every angle imaginable, but the Lord has used this designed teamwork, particularly with us four, to stay the course and move forward, effectively outlasting, thus far, our critics.

Katie has been growing tremendously in her gifting and ability to share critical truths with people and is experiencing more and more God's favor in that area.

And I, well as much as it's still a battle, I'm still here! And things have never been better.


So there you have it, my little dream sequence from the days of yore. You gotta love it!

Columbine 10 Year Anniversary...

It's been 10 years...10 years!!! It doesn't seem like that long ago. I was at Bible College...I can't believe Bible College was 10 years ago.

Six months after the tragedy, some friends and I from the college put together a youth rally for 4,000 high school students. One of my friends, Jill Battaglia, lived in Littleton for some time and knew many of the students who were there, including Rachel Scott, one of the young girls who died because she claimed to be a Christian (www.racheljoyscott.com). She would be 28 this year.

Her older sister, Dana, and younger brother, Craig (who was at the school that day, a sophomore at the time), came out to be the main guest speakers. I led worship with my friends from the college (picture at left, from the left: me, Dominic Balli, bass, Shane Horner, guitar, and Robby Kauffman, drums), and Jeremy Camp with Jean-Luc Lajoie from the Kry played a couple songs.

It was one of those random moments in your life that kind of passes you by quickly, but you look back when it's been 10 years...10 years that Rachel and others never got to see. 10 years that Dana and Craig didn't have their sister...and I guess it just makes you...think, I guess.

10 years. So strange. Lift up a prayer to the Lord on behalf of all the vicitims of Columbine. There are many hurting families in Littleton today.

LGHW Devotional for Apirl 19th...

LGHW for April 5...

LGHW Devotional for March 29...

Link for a clip from "the Apostle."

LGHW for March 22nd...

S1 (Solidified) Class, Part III: Our Prayer Life

Hey everyone, for those of you who were in the 8am S1 (Solidified) Class on July 12th, we didn't get through Section III on Prayer.

Here is a 15 minute Video Blog on that section, so grab out your S1 Packet and a pen and hit play!

LGHW for March 15th...

Video Devotional for March 8th...

LGHW Devotional for March 1...

LGHW Devo for 2.22....

LGHW for February 15th...

Hey everyone, here's a quick little video to get you started on thinking through your lifeGroup Homework. Before you start it you may want to grab your homework out and grab a pen to make some notes. Hope you enjoy and I hope you have a great lifeGroup!

lifeGroup Homework for February 8th...

Hey everyone, I want to make a weekly habit out of posting a quick little "devotional" for the church, mainly to focus on the sermon from Sunday but also to give you some thoughts to consider before going to your lifeGroup in the week.

My heart is to have the truths that are shared on Sundays really take root in our hearts, and I think that between Sunday, the lifeGroups, the devotionals, and now maybe a little 10 minute devotional, these truths will have a much greater chance of resonating in our hearts and having a lasting affect on us.

So anyway, I hope you enjoy it and I hope you have a great lifeGroup this week!

The Message and U2...

I was doing a little research on bible translations, and as I was looking through the history of "the Message," a bible paraphrase, I happened upon this great article at a website called www.atU2.com, a U2 fan-site. You can read the article below, or click here for the article on the original website:

http://www.atu2.com/news/connections/peterson/

Additionally, here's another great U2 fan-site, dedicated to finding sermons within U2 songs...very interesting!

http://u2sermons.blogspot.com/

U2 Connections: Eugene Peterson

by Angela Pancella

What can I give back to God for the blessings he's poured out on me? I'll lift high the cup of salvation -- A toast to God! I'll pray in the name of God; I'll complete what I promised God I'd do, And I'll do it together with his people.

Sound familiar? Bono recited these lines, or some variation on them, before "Where the Streets Have No Name" throughout the Elevation tour. U2-watchers online quickly traced them to Psalm 116. You'd be hard-pressed to find an expression like "a toast to God!" in the Bible on the family bookshelf, however. Most fans, if they gave the matter any thought, probably assumed Bono had done a little creative paraphrasing. Bono putting an ear-catching spin on Biblical passages is, after all, nothing new. (He once described Jesus summing the law into "Love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself," then saying "That's what I'm about! That's my Greatest Hits!") But just like all those uncredited lyrics from other people's songs that end up sung during U2 concerts, this translation of Psalm 116 was not a Bono original. It is the work of Eugene Peterson, poet, Professor Emeritus at Regent College in Vancouver, and for 35 years a pastor.

Does the name sound familiar? Bono's been dropping it in interviews for the last several years, even mentioning that he'd been reading Peterson's translation of the New Testament to his dying father. However, the fact that he swiped Peterson's Psalm 116 for the introduction to Streets hasn't come up.

Peterson's complete American English translation of the Christian Scriptures, The Message Bible, hits bookshelves in July. In the promotional materials heralding this, a story is told of Peterson and U2: "Once, while teaching in Vancouver, some of Peterson's students became very excited because Bono of the rock band U2 said The Message was the most important book he'd read in his whole life. The students thought this a great triumph. Eugene didn't recognize either Bono or U2."

So when interviewing Peterson for @U2 (a project which went through most communications media: I emailed the questions to NavPress, publisher of The Message, and they mailed me the answers Peterson faxed back to them), I asked first if he had learned any more about the band. "Yes, I am familiar with Bono and U-2 [sic]. A year or so ago (maybe less) their chaplain/pastor who was traveling with them at the time, called and asked me to come to Chicago to meet them. I wasn't able to get away at the time but I had a lovely conversation with him. And many of my younger friends and ex-students keep me posted on the latest from U-2. When the Rolling Stones [sic] interview with them came out a few months ago, I got clippings sent to me from all over the world!"

(Presumably he's referring here to the Rolling Stone interview in December of 2001, where Bono was asked about his favorite reading materials: "...there's a translation of Scriptures -- the New Testament and the Books of Wisdom -- that this guy Eugene Peterson has undertaken. It has been a great strength to me. He's a poet and a scholar, and he's brought the text back to the tone in which the books were written.")

What did he think about having a quote from his work recited, uncredited, in front of 20,000 concertgoers at a time?

"My reaction? Pleased, very pleased. Bono is singing to the very people I did this work for. I feel that we are allies in this. He is helping get me and The Message into the company of the very people Jesus spent much of his time with."

The seed for The Message was planted during his pastoral work, Peterson says in a press release. He was trying to get across the fire and wild words of Paul's letter to the Galatians in a Bible study class, but his parishioners were paying more attention to the pot of coffee in the church basement. "It was just awful. They'd fill up their coffee cups and stir in sugar and cream and look at their cups and they weren't getting it. It was just really bad. I went home after the third week and said to my wife that I was going to teach them Greek. If they could read it in Greek they would get it, they'd understand what a revolutionary text it is and couldn't just keep living in their ruts. She agreed that would empty the class out fast."

Instead, Peterson translated Galatians himself. In the interview with @U2 he explains his approach to this and other books of the Bible: "The largest influence on the work of The Message, after the Greek and Hebrew text itself, was 35 years working as a pastor, listening, listening, listening to people, trying to get these original texts in their idiom, their imaginations, the way they talked. I always felt I was on the border of two countries where they spoke different languages -- the bible language and the American language. I kept asking myself, if Isaiah or John were writing what they wrote for these people I am living with, how would they say it?"

Here's an example of that approach, from the sixth chapter of Galatians: "Make a careful exploration of who you are and the work you have been given, and then sink yourself into that. Don't be impressed with yourself. Don't compare yourself with others. Each of you must take responsibility for doing the creative best you can with your own life."

All of Paul's letters have this vibrancy in Peterson's translation. How did working these (which, being letters, have a built-in immediacy) into contemporary language compare to working on the other books, with their variety of moods and tones?

"Paul is an extravagant, inventive poet. His syntax is sometimes wild. It's an adventure to enter into his imagination and get the same sounds and meanings in American. The gospels were very different, much more difficult because there is a simplicity and directness that is a real challenge to get across into American English. By the time I got to the Old Testament I was prepared for the variations in style and the long stretches of poetry."

It would be interesting to find out from Bono just why he has been so impressed by this translation. Peterson can't speak to that, but he can talk about reactions from people in similar circumstance to Bono's. "When I started this, I really had in mind people who had never read the Bible before," he says. "What took me by surprise and continues to please me is how many speak or write to me as 'having read the Bible all my life and now, finally, I get it.'"

Bono's familiarity with the Bible is evident through his lyrics, but he doesn't seem to have been calcified by custom into the "my Bible is the only Bible" syndrome. This can happen when someone is brought up to read the Bible, or certain passages, so many times that the word choices of a given translation are confused with the Holy Writ itself. Bono's unusual religious upbringing and allergic reaction to fundamentalism may have helped keep him from thinking that Jesus spoke in, say, King James English. A similar trap, which I confess colors my ability to fully appreciate The Message Bible, opens up because most translations have been made in the best and most literary writing possible. One can come to love the language so much, the meaning becomes secondary. For example, there is a passage in the twelfth chapter of Hebrews which is rendered in exquisite prose in "my" Bible:

"You have not approached that which could be touched and a blazing fire and gloomy darkness and storm and a trumpet blast and a voice speaking words such that those who heard begged that no message be further addressed to them..."

The Message Bible's take on the same words seems flat by comparison:
"Unlike your ancestors, you didn't come to Mount Sinai -- all that volcanic blaze and earthshaking rumble -- to hear God speak."

When asked, Peterson says he has received very few complaints that he tinkered with well-loved language. "I was prepared for an all-out assault but I have received very little opposition or criticism. Maybe there has been a shift in our population from a bible reading people who know their bibles well and have no reason to want something different, to a non-bible reading country with a huge population of people who go to U-2 concerts who didn't know that anything like this bible even existed. And when they learn about it they are ready to read."

(For more information about The Message Bible, visit www.messagebible.com. To order online, visit Amazon.com.)

Postscript: In June 2002 the Navigators, the ministry group behind "The Message"'s publication, held a celebration which included showing videotaped testimonials from various fans of the book. Bono sent this greeting:

"Hi Mr. Peterson, Eugene. My name is Bono. I'm a singer with the group U2. I wanted to sort of video message you my thanks, and our thanks in the band, for this remarkable work you've done translating the Scriptures. Really, really a remarkable work."

"As a songwriter, it was very clear to me that you were a poet as well as a scholar. You brought the musicality to God's Word that I'm sure was there, was always there in intention.

"There have been some great translations, some very literary translations, but no translations that I've read that speaks to me in my own language. So I want to thank you for that."

"And it's been ten years, that's a long time, so take a rest now, won't you? Bye."

A Note on Mary Magdalene...

Some of you have been doing your homework! I had a couple people ask me about something that I didn't mention at the 9am. Good job!!!

I also added some artwork of Mary holding her red "Easter" eggs, as well as some pictures of what is believed to be Lazarus' tomb, which can be viewed and toured even today.

Because I didn't mention this in the first service I made mention at the 11 and 6.30 about a discrepancy in the scriptures on the identity of the nameless "sinful woman" mentioned in Luke chapter 7. I identify her as Mary of Bethany, though the text doesn't say that explicitly, but I want to share why I believe this. I also identify Mary of Bethany to very possibly be Mary Magdalene. I want to be clear though that I believe that there are actually four possible ways to interpret this situation, and I think that all four are very valid.

The most conservative and safest interpretation is that there are two Marys and one unidentified "sinful woman." The next scenario, also very conservative and safe is that there are two Marys and that Mary of Bethany is also the "sinful woman." The next scenario, somewhat conservative but starting to read in between the lines is that there are still two Marys, with the "sinful woman" being Mary Magdalene. The fourth scenario, admittedly more of a stretch but still a real possibility is that the three entities are actually all one in the same- the idea that Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the sinful woman are all the same person. This is what I personally hold to, though I believe that the other three are just as acceptable, don't change the point of the gospel whatsoever, and in at least the first two cases, are far more palatable and accepted. But I'd like to take some time to at least share with you my findings and why I think they are one.

In Luke 7 it simply calls the woman a "sinful woman." No name. However, in John 11.2, it says "This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair." I believe that this instance wasn't speaking about the very similar instance in John 12 (which does in fact name her as a Mary) for four main reasons.

First, this text seems to be in chronological order, putting the raising of Lazarus before the second instance of anointing Jesus' feet. The text in John 11 says "poured" past tense rather than "will pour" as an event in the future.

Secondly, it makes mention that Lazarus was there, who had been raise from the dead. It speaks of it being an event in the past.

Thirdly, why I don't think this statement of her being "the same one who poured perfume on Him" is mentioning a future event is because it seems to me that if he was to mention her as the one who would eventually anoint Him, he would make a note that it was a future event, like he did when he mentioned a future event in chapter 12 that Judas would be a part of when he said “one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, who would betray Him.” In the case of Mary, it seems that he would have said something like “this Mary, whose brother now lay sick, is the same one who would pour perfume on Him,” rather than speak as if it were a past even. It would be similar to him saying “Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him” even though it hadn’t happened. That wasn’t John’s writing style, per se.

Lastly, I think it would be an unnecessary point for John to point out that this is the same Mary as in the chapter 12 anointing because it is quite obvious that it’s the same Mary. No reason to make special mention. Due to the almost certainty that the gospel of John is the oldest, he may be making mention of this to tie up a loose end from Luke’s writing, reminding people that this Mary was the same one from Luke’s writing, since Luke didn't name her. Therefore, I don’t see it as differentiating Mary of Bethany from Mary Magdelene, but rather tying together Mary of Bethany with the “sinful woman.”

There are a couple reasons Luke may not have named the "sinful woman" by name. It is fairly common in the scriptures to name someone something else before certain experiences. Matthew was "the tax collector named Levi," Saul became Paul, Simon the Pharisee was first just mentioned as "the Pharisee" until Jesus speaks his name (which is so interesting to me, the text is technical until Jesus speaks and makes it personal, approaching a judgmental Pharisee as if to say, "I know your name, I know your life, I know who you are." Very cool). It is possible that before she encountered Christ and started following Him, Mary of Bethany was simply referred to as "the sinful woman."

It is also somewhat possible that the reason Luke didn't mention her name is because he wasn't there. He may have had his facts straight on many events that he was not present for, but decided to keep her anonymous. It could also be that she was maybe still alive and didn't want to defame her name, not that any of us have anything to hide, but you never know. John, who was probably there at the scene, may be clarifying this earlier writing of Luke by saying, "by the way, it was Mary of Bethany that was there anointing Jesus' feet."

Between these four observations, this makes it seem to me like this Mary, who poured perfume on the Lord was the same "sinful woman" mentioned in Luke 7.

So to me, that clears the idea that Mary of Mary/Martha/Lazarus is the same as the "sinful woman." So now the other discrepancy is the identity of the Mary in the well known "Mary and Martha" story of Luke 10.38-42. Again, no detail is given if this is the same Mary/Martha as the Mary/Martha/Lazarus, however there are three things I point to in order to make the case that this Mary is the same Mary. This one, I would agree, is more up for debate, but I will just point out the three things that intrigue me and lend to who I think this Mary is. Most people agree on this one, but some don't.

First, both have a sister named Martha. I'm sure they probably weren't the only Mary and Martha sister duo, but the chances that it's a different Mary/Martha I wouldn't personally think would be very good.

Secondly, Martha in both texts is specifically described as "serving," making it seem like this Martha, mentioned in John 12, is the same Martha in the Mary and Martha story.

Thirdly, Mary's character is described similarly. Not that she's the only Mary in the world, or in the word for that matter, that had a very intimate devotion to Christ, but it builds the strength that this is almost definitely the same worshipful, devoted Mary who had a servant-hearted sister named Martha, both of whom enjoyed opening up their home to Jesus.

So far, it seems that the Mary in the Mary/Martha/Lazarus story is the same as the Mary/Martha story and the same as the "sinful woman."

So assuming that the "sinful woman" is the same as the Mary/Martha/Lazarus Mary, as far as her also being Mary Magdalene, there is also no definite biblical reference for this. I have based my belief that this is the same Mary due mostly to the findings of church fathers and scholars, as well as some possible "clues" in the word. Outside of the modern Catholic Church, many major churches (mostly pre-protestant era non-Catholic Churches, such as the Latin Orthodox and the Byzantine churches) hold to the idea that these two Marys are actually one. Most of their findings look to other period writings, early writings of church fathers (some dating to the 3rd Century), and some archaeology. Even the Catholic Church held this belief until 1969.

Here is a writing from the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) of 1910 that makes its case for the three Mary's being the same. I am unsure why they reversed their decision in 1969:

"Most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), "that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenor of the gospels [this excerpt from the CE is saying that the statement that Westcott has made that it is impossible to even think that these are the the same Mary is a very extreme and poor assessment on his part, as he even goes so far to say that it goes against the general purpose or concept of the gospels - Jobey]." It is the identification of Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" of Luke 7:37, which is most combatted by Protestants [which is interesting to me, because it seems very obvious that this is the "easy" one to deduce - Jobey].......

The first fact, mentioned in the Gospel relating to the question under discussion is the anointing of Christ's feet by a woman, a "sinner" in the city (Luke 7:37-50). This belongs to the Galilean ministry, it precedes the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand and the third Passover. Immediately afterwards St. Luke describes a missionary circuit in Galilee and tells us of the women who ministered to Christ, among them being "Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils gone forth" (Luke 8:2); but he does not tell us that she is to be identified with the "sinner" of the previous chapter. In 10:38-42, he tells us of Christ's visit to Martha and Mary "in a certain town"; it is impossible to identify this town, but it is clear from 9:53, that Christ had definitively left Galilee, and it is quite possible that this "town" was Bethany. This seems confirmed by the preceding parable of the good Samaritan, which must almost certainly have been spoken on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. But here again we note that there is no suggestion of an identification of the three persons (the "sinner", Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany), and if we had only St. Luke to guide us we should certainly have no grounds for so identifying them. St. John, however, clearly identifies Mary of Bethany with the woman who anointed Christ's feet (12; cf. Matthew 26 and Mark 14).

It is remarkable that already in 11:2, St. John has spoken of Mary as "she that anointed the Lord's feet", [which in the Greek is] "he aleipsasa;" It is commonly said that he refers to the subsequent anointing which he himself describes in 12:3-8; but it may be questioned whether he would have used "he aleipsasa" if another woman, and she a "sinner" in the city, had done the same. It is conceivable that St. John, just because he is writing so long after the event and at a time when Mary was dead, wishes to point out to us that she was really the same as the "sinner." In the same way St. Luke may have veiled her identity precisely because he did not wish to defame one who was yet living; he certainly does something similar in the case of St. Matthew whose identity with Levi the publican (5:7) he conceals.

If the foregoing argument holds good, Mary of Bethany and the "sinner" are one and the same. But an examination of St. John's Gospel makes it almost impossible to deny the identity of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalen. From St. John we learn the name of the "woman" who anointed Christ's feet previous to the last supper. We may remark here that it seems unnecessary to hold that because St. Matthew and St. Mark say "two days before the Passover", while St. John says "six days" there were, therefore, two distinct anointings following one another. St. John does not necessarily mean that the supper and the anointing took place six days before, but only that Christ arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover. At that supper, then, Mary received the glorious encomium, "she hath wrought a good work upon Me . . . in pouring this ointment upon My body she hath done it for My burial . . . wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached . . . that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her.

Is it credible, in view of all this, that this Mary should have no place at the foot of the cross, nor at the tomb of Christ? Yet it is Mary Magdalene who, according to all the Evangelists, stood at the foot of the cross and assisted at the entombment and was the first recorded witness of the Resurrection. And while St. John calls her "Mary Magdalene" in 19:25, 20:1, and 20:18, he calls her simply "Mary" in 20:11 and 20:16. [A possible conclusion is drawn by the CE that Christ's statement of the honor she would receive by storing the perfume for His burial would translate into her being the one that was at the cross, took part in His burial, and witnessed the empty tomb. It is also noted that just because she isn't named as "Mary Magdalene" doesn't rule out that it is possibly her, due to the fact that sometimes John called her Mary Magdalene, sometimes he simply called her Mary - Jobey]."

You have to understand that the way I am wired, I am always looking for the truth beneath the surface, in between the lines. I love uncovering something that isn't quite so obvious and finding some great treasure hidden deep in the text. My view isn't the safest view, but it is a valid view. I do believe there was something powerful and prophetic about what Jesus said to Mary of Bethany about having a special place in His burial that went beyond just pouring perfume on Him. It may be a stretch, but it wouldn't be beyond the Lord to pop one of these fun little clues in His word to stretch our study and our examination of His word, His depth, and His ability to amaze us at every turn in the scriptures. I get a kick out of uncovering things, it makes the word so exciting to me.

Very interesting indeed, and definitely a topic up for differences. Definitely not an essential core belief that changes the way you view God or your faith. Definitely impossible to say they are for sure all three the same person, definitely impossible to say they are for sure two people, and definitely impossible to say they are for sure three people.

At the end of the day, when it comes to God and His word, I think that sometimes the point isn't finding out the answer, but the point, rather, is simply just looking for it. I know that God loves to be searched and chased. We won't ever be able to search the Unsearchable, but that should never stop us from trying anyways.

I hope that sheds a little light in case you were curious. :o) Good luck in your studies, send anything my way if you find anything interesting.

Slainte!

Jesus, the Good (but sometimes Mafia) Shepherd

Ah yes, the ages old image of Jesus, the oh so compassionate Shepherd, (my personal favorite being "Russell Crowe Jesus" on the right) carrying the little youngling on His broad, strong, carpenter's shoulders.

Or is it?

This Sunday we looked at what the role (and task list) of a really rockin' good shepherd really is. In it, we uncovered the "truth behind the image" as to exactly why this cute little sheep is resting on the shoulders of its protector. Turns out, this little sheep has a bit of a rebellious streak in him. When a sheep would wander from the flock out on its own, a good shepherd (not a minimum wage hired hand) would go out, find that sheep (to spare it from wolves, attack, theft, or hunger/thirst) and then do what anyone would think to do: break its legs.

Yep, that's right, break its legs...mafia style. Seem a little harsh? I think so. But here is what would happen next. The shepherd would then pick up the sheep and put it on his shoulders and carry the sheep back to the flock. After that, the sheep would continue to remain on the shepherd's shoulders as he witnessed and learned that the shepherd takes care of the flock, protects them, and feeds them. Once the sheep is able to hobble, it does so, but stays close to the shepherd because it can't quite keep up. Once the sheep is back to full health, it may mingle amidst the flock, but it will never leave the flock or the immediate presence of the shepherd ever again. It simply knows better by then.

I'm sure you see the parallel. A Good Shepherd keeps His flock together and wants to teach each individual the importance of being dependent on Himself and under the care and protection and unity of the flock. No matter what the cost, a true Good Shepherd knows what is best, for the long haul, for every sheep.

It's some tough love, mafia style, but it's a lesson a poor, dumb, lost little sheep will never forget, and will ultimately be spared from being lost again, subject to wolves, thieves, and starvation.

lifeGroup Homework for the week of April 20th

Here's some thoughts I typed out for the lifeGroup leaders for the Nehemiah Sermon Series early on in the book of Nehemiah...

When it comes to teaching through the lifeGroup, I usually try (and often don't succeed) to stick with one main theme for the homework, so let’s look at the different sections and see what might stick out for your group.

Under “My Story,” Jeremy talked about having “the papers,” which was sort of Nehemiah’s validation. I think in my group I’m going to spend some time in this topic because I think validation has a huge part in our life. Our motive, performance, and expectations of others rely a lot on validation. There is a lot of healthy and unhealthy validation that goes on in our lives.

For my group, which is a group of youngish marrieds, mostly with little kids, I’m going to challenge them to think about what brings validation for themselves and their spouses. I know for this affinity, the wives are greatly validated and feel appreciated when the husband comes home from work and doesn’t just turn the game on, but helps out with kids (on his own volition), helps cook dinner, takes out the trash, etc. It lets her know that what she does all day (again, this is for youngish marrieds where most of our moms stay at home with the kids) is appreciated and held in high esteem.

On the flipside, the men want to be respected and trusted and believed in, and for us, this validation comes through seeing that trust live out, be it in finances, decisions, leadership, future plans, etc…you know…man stuff. Additionally, and I’m gonna get a little real here, I know we throw men and their desire for sex in one clump of “man needs” that we joke about as being strictly fleshly desires; but I know for the men I have talked to, sex is a huge validation for them because that in itself often times shows that trust and respect from their wife. It, in a sense, says to the husbands “you are doing your job leading me, taking care of me, and loving me, and THAT is why I am attracted to you.”

So…my answer for men who complain about their wives seemingly making “excuses” for denying intimate times? Next time, I tell them, pay attention when she “complains” about you making excuses when she needs help around the house. She needs to be appreciated and validated and respected, however that looks.

Did I just throw the men under the bus? No way. Because I know that if the men start to man up and stop making their own excuses when it comes to helping around the house and with kids (even when they are tired from a long day of work), EVERYTHING improves…quality time, family time, future planning, parenting, arguing time is cut down, trust increases, respect is earned, intimacy life is improved…everyone wins.

Now the thing we have to watch for is when we are only getting validation from people, and when that is our motive. when I serve my wife, I don't, or at least really try not to serve her to “get” something, whether it’s an “okay” to go out with the fellas, permission to watch the game when we would normally hang out as a couple, permission to buy some sweet new piece of music gear, or even if it’s something like respect, trust, or even sex. My motive, hopefully, is to serve because I love her and don’t expect anything back. This is a challenge as humans, but when we can do that, the reward is far greater. Service should never be used as a weapon or a motive for validation.

Next under “digging deeper,” Jeremy talks about Peter walking on water…God gave Peter the vision and plan (“come out here!”), but it took Peter to TRUST God to actually move forward.
I like to think about Moses in this regard, like we talked about last week. Moses was given a vision and plan from God, but he wouldn’t trust God in it. He had 5 basic excuses, and God answered each one with a rebuttal. During the discourse, God asks Moses, “what do you have in your hand?” He was referring to the staff Moses had, but it also referred to the fact that Moses had everything he needed to fulfill God’s plan; if Moses actually trusted God, he could take something simple like a staff and turn it into a serpent, something Moses could never do on his own. As we look at our “simple” talents, treasures, experiences…instead of seeing them as trite, inanimate objects, we need to see them as having the potential to being transformed into something much greater, which in Moses’ case was a serpent.

Also, when I think of with Peter being out in the water i think about how we often, like him, start off with a bang like he did and end up, pardon the expression, Petering out (ha..sorry, just had to). I think about the story in the word about the builder counting the cost. You see, we don’t want to be the boy who cried wolf. We want our yes to be yes and our no to be no as the word of God says. So, before you make big claims or promises, think twice, sleep on it, bring it before the Lord, count the cost, and only do what you know you can do.

Lastly, on the back, I love this scripture about worry, because I am, by nature, a worrier. One thing I like to throw out to give a perspective to people is the very nature of worry. Worry is something we typically do in silence, in our minds, a form of meditation where we think of the day’s or future’s events and we ponder them to try to figure out a solution. And now looking at prayer…

With prayer, we typically do it in silence, in our minds, a form of meditation where we think of the day’s or future’s events and we ponder them…sound familiar? But here’s where it changes…we ponder them to let GOD figure out a solution, not US.

The point? I say that worry is a form of prayer, but it is prayer to ourselves. It’s making us god…praying (or meditating) to ourselves so that WE can figure things out and answer our own prayer (worry). You could spend the SAME amount of time and energy praying as you would worrying, but the results are night and day (and one less ulcer and few less gray hairs). You go from worshipping yourself to worshipping God. It’s good stuff.

Hope any of this helped…I'd like to hear feedback from you all about your groups, how they are going, who is coming, how the sermon based groups are going, etc.

Until next time, have a great lifeGroup this week, and have fun!

God bless you all.