Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Matthew 10:34-36 quoting Micah 7:6: Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." And "a man's foes will be those of his own household."

So which is it, Lord? Do we make peace or not?

Jesus says that "peacemakers" will be called "sons of God." I think this means that the children of God, the followers of Jesus, have a message that sets people at variance, but that their lifestyle is one of making peace with everybody. Look at the verses below:

Proverbs 26: 17 He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.

Good, Solomonic advice: stop meddling (you may get bitten).

James 3: 16-18 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil work will be there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

Jesus made peace with God through the cross. By extension, we are peacemakers in the world, carrying that cross. We are not out to cause bloody fights, especially with each other. We are at peace: with God, with ourselves, with others.

Hebrews 12: 14 pursue peace with all men, and holiness.

We pursue peace, not strife. We don't enter cultures with intent to bully them into submission to our message. Instead, we demonstrate peace to them ~ what it is to be peaceful. We discard our agendas. We give a back seat to politics and arguments about secondary matters.

Proverbs 13: 10 By pride comes only contention, but with the well-advised is wisdom.

Contention is a product of pride. Good advisors, though, who have wisdom, come in humility. They are not pressing a program of pushing a style, a culture, or a prescribed way of living. They are there to love and to model abundant life. We should enter every situation in life with an intent to make peace. It may not always turn out that way, but that is our mode of operation.

Romans 14: 4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

We do well to realize this, especially among believers. We tend to judge one another and size one another up based on our religious prejudices. But people don't stand because they are like us; they stand because of Him who holds them up.

Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

There are no perfect peacemakers. Some situations make it difficult to nearly impossible. But we are to strive for it. We seek to understand our adversaries, not provoke them. Were we in their shoes, our perspective would change. Peacemakers wear the other man's moccasins (doesn't mean they will fit).

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

Lashing out at "sinners" is the last thing we are called to do. Why? Because we are all in the same boat. It is pride that makes us think we are better than others because we may do a few things right. This doesn't mean we are excusing sin. We are actually getting the better of it because we recognize its depths ~ in us. Spiritual people are gentle toward those caught in snares. They don't abandon birds caught in brambles. They don't mash in the thorns.

1Peter 2: 21-23 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: "Who committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth"; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously.

God knows whether you are in the right or in the wrong. You don't have to make a big defense and win the argument. Does winning matter more than connecting, sharing, building?

Ephesians 4: 1-3 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to have a walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Where did the church lose this? Thankfully, many Christians do model these things; but many do not. The church is a unit not an array of camps lobbing grenades at each other. We all belong to one Body, even if we are "members in particular." That body can't function well if it is at internal war.

1John 4: 20 If someone says, ‘I love God,' and hates his brother he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

If we "hate" the believers in Christ, we hate Him. If we belittle them, we belittle Him. Any questions?

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

This is how peacemaking is done. Have you ever heard a couple arguing and the voices get more shrill and the language harsher? Harsh words tend to escalate.
Soft words cool the passion. Take a deep breath. Think about what you're saying. Say it calmly. The debate you're involved in is not the end of the world. Sometimes it's the loser who actually wins.

Do Words Pollute Cultures? Word-up On Hip-hop

Simmons, co-founder of the Def Jam label and a driving force behind hip-hop's huge commercial success, called for voluntary restrictions on the words and setting up an industry watchdog to recommend guidelines for lyrical and visual standards.

"We recommend that the recording and broadcast industries voluntarily remove/bleep/delete the misogynistic words 'bitch' and 'ho' and the racially offensive word 'nigger'," Simmons and Benjamin Chavis, co-chairmen of the advocacy group Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, said in a statement.

"These three words should be considered with the same objections to obscenity as 'extreme curse words'," it said. (Reuters News Service)

Colossians 3:8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

Matthew 12: 36 On judgment day, people will have to account for every careless word they have spoken. By your words you will be found guilty or not guilty.

Do words really do any harm? After all, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

The first of Moses' commandments was to not take the name of the Lord in vain. Meaning what? Meaning don't degrade it by just using it frivolously or including it as a curse-word in your vocabulary.

Psychologists know that words can damage children, even set them on a destructive course in life. We all remember when the word "nigger" was used to denigrate blacks. The fact is, words have power to build up or destroy. Words can set the world on fire. Hitler's words murdered millions.

Perhaps we can overdo trying to have pristine speech. But in the long run that is better than what we have achieved today by stretching the limits of free speech. What used to be the salty speech of men and sailors in the forties has become commonplace among even women and children. In other words, we're all guilty, not just Don Imus and Mel Gibson.

But perhaps our culture has gone far enough (although I'd be surprised). Maybe a backlash is coming: a return to a more genteel public speech. It is interesting in that our culture has lost its etiquette.

If we think of people as "ho's" and "pimps", we are slandering images of God. The popular slang that calls everybody a fornicator with their mothers is like the ultimate insult, thus it is popular. We are a "tougher" culture for it. We are not easily offended. And we are, after all, calling people what they are, sinners.

Christians, though, must take the higher road and, even if ridiculed for it, honor God and treat their fellow human beings with respect by learning to control the tongue. Maybe our music and arts have reached the saturation point on the glorification of the gutter. What a revolution that would be.

Our world is indeed steeped in a steaming pile of profanity and obscenity. It is a pollution that is likely as damaging as acid rain or greenhouse gas. But we love it.

We want to wallow in it. And that is exactly what we are doing ~ in the name of liberation, in the name of making a better world. I'm afraid, instead, it is making the world more sordid, dangerous, and malevolent. It raises corruption to a place of honor; and that can't be good.

A Planet Like Ours: Is There Life There?

Potentially habitable planet found
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

For the first time astronomers have discovered a planet outside our solar system that is potentially habitable, with Earth-like temperatures, a find researchers described Tuesday as a big step in the search for "life in the universe."

The planet is just the right size, might have water in liquid form, and in galactic terms is relatively nearby at 120 trillion miles away. But the star it closely orbits, known as a "red dwarf," is much smaller, dimmer and cooler than our sun.

There's still a lot that is unknown about the new planet, which could be deemed inhospitable to life once more is known about it. And it's worth noting that scientists' requirements for habitability count Mars in that category: a size relatively similar to Earth's with temperatures that would permit liquid water. However, this is the first outside our solar system that meets those standards.

"It's a significant step on the way to finding possible life in the universe," said University of Geneva astronomer Michel Mayor, one of 11 European scientists on the team that found the planet. "It's a nice discovery. We still have a lot of questions."

Phillipians 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made
in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became
obedient to death—even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that
is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth
and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.

Is there other life in the universe? It would seem logical. Even by the odds, the cosmos is so vast that it is likely there would be another planet capable of sustaining life in some form, in some stage of evolution.

And what of other possible dimensions? What lurks there: and could man ever find out?

So far, our great expense at finding this puzzle out has left us empty-handed. Can the Bible tell us anything?

The above passage basically says that whatever is out there, Jesus, a human being like us, owns it all. Indeed, other passages tell us He made it all. There are hints in scripture at other kinds of life, and most notably the angels. See Revelation if you want some weird creatures.

The point is, also, that we who believe are destined to also rule with Christ in the cosmos. We are going where no man has gone before on a future star trek with the Lord. Why? For one thing, we alone are made in God's "image." Jesus revealed what that image actually looks like.

God became a man, and that being was Jesus. It is His plan whether anybody likes it or not. But it is also good news (gospel). In fact, it is the best news we will ever hear.

If there is life in the universe, outside of this lonely earth, it will wind up bowing to Jesus. Sound like science fiction? Religious fantasy? Best go back and consider it. He is not far from any one of us. Why not get acquainted? It isn't every day you get to meet a king, much less the King of the Cosmos. And He wants an audience with you.

The End of Limbo

Mark 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he was angry. He said to his disciples, "Let the little children come to me. Don't keep them away. God's kingdom belongs to people like them.

Limbo (from the latin limbus meaning edge or boundary) refers to a state after death in Roman Catholic theology, and may refer to two concepts. The Limbo of the Fathers refers to a temporary state of the souls of ancient righteous people before Jesus Christ made it possible for them to enter Heaven.

The Limbo of Children refers to a permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, without having committed any personal sins, but without having been freed from original sin. The Limbo of Children is a theological speculation that never been defined as official Church dogma.

The concept of the limbo of the fathers (limbus patrum), also called "Abraham's bosom", refers to people who had lived good lives, but died before Jesus' Resurrection and did not go to heaven, but rather had to wait for Christ to open heaven's gates. This concept of limbo affirms that one can get into heaven only through Jesus Christ but does not portray Moses, etc., as being punished eternally in hell.

The term Limbo does not appear in the Bible, nor is the concept spelled out. Roman Catholics take the term "bosom of Abraham", which appears in Luke's story of Lazarus and Dives, to refer to limbo. The bosom of Abraham represents the blissful state where the righteous dead await Judgment Day. As such, this concept corresponds closely to the concept of limbo of the fathers in that it is neither Heaven nor Hell and the people there are waiting to enter paradise. from Wikipedia

The Catholic Church has decided to abandon the theology of Limbo. Originally, Limbo was used to describe the intermediate state between death and heaven: it also served to make sense of what happened to the saints who died before the appearance of Jesus. Dante mused that virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, were in Limbo.

It developed into a doctrine explaining what happened to infants who died before they were baptized. Infant baptism is practiced among Catholics and some Protestants. In fact, I was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church. So important is the sacrament that many worried about relatives and infants who died unbaptized.

I don't see where infant baptism hurts anything. Neither do I see where it was commanded by scripture. In fact, I don't see where it is necessary to be baptized to be saved. Baptism, in my understanding, is simply an outward performance and testimony of an inward change. It signifies death and rebirth.

I do recommend baptism for numerous reasons, among them the fact that it is an act of obedience. But I think it is better done when we are older and capable of understanding its meaning. Part of that meaning is that we understand what happens to us when we place our faith in Christ: we become new creatures.

The transition after death still remains a mystery. We can make guesses, but that is about all. Did Jesus say to the thief on the cross:

"Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise" or

"Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43, NASB)?

There was no comma in the original manuscripts, and it makes all the difference in what Jesus meant. After all, at that point, Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father. His next stop was the grave.

So how does God judge infants who die, or fetuses, or even those outside the faith that live good lives? I take great comfort in the realization that God is just. We needn't worry about whether He will get it right.

As for Limbo, it may still be a useful concept when used in regard to the mysteries of after-death transition. We know something happens, but we don't know what or how.

At the very least, the Limbo is an interesting dance that was imported to the US from the Carribean in the late 50's. Performed to Jamaican music, the participant passes under a horizontal stick that is lowered slightly before each pass. This is still done in skating rinks, for instance. I remember my skinny older brother who could maneuver himself under a stick at 18 inches.

Cho Seung-Hui: A Man On His Own Mission

"You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." ~ Cho Seung-Hui, Virgina Tech Murderer

Luke 13:1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Genesis 4:8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [d] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"


As I was looking for the psychology behind the gunman's actions I learned some things:

1. Mass murderers are not necessarily psychopaths (having no conscience).

2. There is a tendency to paranoia (irrational fear and vengeance motives).

The Lord's conversation with Cain illustrates this: for Cain there was a disconnect with regarding another person's ~ or one's own ~ life as valuable. The Virginia gunman was utterly committed to the death. He was carrying out a "righteous" cause in his own head. He was playing God.

It is interesting that the gunman identified with Jesus Christ. He felt messianic in his mission that day. He was saying, "I am going to prove something to the world."

He was also in identification with the "downtrodden." He felt deeply betrayed by the world around him. He was out to get the "rich" in their "debaucheries."

We could also compare this tragedy to the devastation and death caused by a natural calamity or what insurance companies call "acts of God." According to Jesus' statement above, this was not a visitation on a class of sinners who were worse than others, as if God was cleaning up the Virginia campus, snuffing out the wicked. Instead, it appears random and senseless. This was a man gone berserk, a human volcano that erupted. His victims were just those who were in the way at the time.

One of the scary things about life is this problem of chance. Things can happen that defy all logic or meaning. It is as if God is nowhere near the situation and that the world is simply a game of dice. The visitation of grisly death has no bearing on justice or fairness. There were no winners that day.

The gunman saw himself as a catalyst, a dispenser of some weird justice. He was out to right wrongs. But what he did was to inflict evil and put a scar and deep wound on countless families for generations to come. It is as if he were a lone megalomaniac on a mission to change the world. Sadly, he chose the wrong vehicle to affect society. His crusade was no more than a travesty.

In the video clips he sent, Cho looked wasted, like he had not slept or was on drugs, perhaps Prozac. His comments indicate that he felt like the world was falling in on him. He was the ultimate victim and a martyr for his own cause. In the end, it was an extremely selfish act, the sending of the message "I am in pain, and you're going to hear about it."

Doubtless, the next Cho is out there somewhere, walking among us, plotting the day of vengeance that will fall on some innocent and hapless folks, suddenly caught in a frenzy of insane fury. It tells us, even in secure America, that we cannot take life for granted. It is fragile and fleeting and very precious. Our time is always ready (John 7: 6).

From The Seed Grew A Tree: The Church

Luke 13:18 Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches."

John 12: 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.

A seed must fall into the ground and die before it is reborn into the plant it will become.

So is the history of the Church.

The founder and foundation, Jesus Christ, died and rose again, and sent His Holy Spirit to begin the transformation. He was the seed that died.

The Early Church was focused in the Middle East and later found her locus in Europe as well. In terms of the metaphor of a tree, the Early Church was the trunk and root system, a singular organism with no other identity at that time than just being "the church."

In 1054 AD that trunk split into two major branches: the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox.

In the 1500's the Protestant Reformation began the sprouting of multiple branches and twigs that became the modern church. The church was also transplanted to America where it flourished and helped to seed the whole world with the gospel.

The modern church has been like the sprouting of leaves under which many birds could perch or nest. Ultimately, it is still ONE tree. And I think we are in a time that we are beginning to realize that. It will ultimately be the full picture of what began in its roots, and even in that initial seed, Jesus Christ himself. At that point, all the birds in the world will want to come and nest in its branches.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rise of Christian Gangs

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Destroying the environment.

KURT VONNEGUT: Yes. And I wrote a poem about that-- which was published, incidentally, by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation on their cover. But the poem goes, "The crucified planet earth. Should it find a voice? And the sense of irony might now well say of our abuse of it. Forgive them father, they know not what they do. The irony would be that we know what we're doing. And when the last living thing has died on account of us, how shapely it would be, how poetical if the Earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon; It is done.

People did not like it here. And they don't and they shouldn't.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: If we're despoiling our surroundings, it must mean that we don't respect it.

KURT VONNEGUT: No. We don't. And I think most people have an awful time here. And, I have said on behalf of all animals, is life is no way to treat an animal. It hurts too much.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Mr. Vonnegut, how does a man stay funny when he thinks the world stinks like this?

KURT VONNEGUT: He smokes.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Is that the secret to humor?

KURT VONNEGUT: Yes. Yeah, it helps a lot.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: Well, I want to ask you about this. You ask in the book a question that actually you don't answer so I want to -

KURT VONNEGUT: I'm old.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: But I want to-- think about answering this one. You write "what can be said to our young people now that psychopathic personalities — which is to say persons without consciences, without senses of pity or shame — have taken all the money in the treasuries of our government and corporations and made it their own?" What can we say to younger people who have their whole lives ahead of them?

KURT VONNEGUT: Well, you are human beings. Resourceful. Form a little society of your own. And, hang out with them. Get a gang.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: You're preaching getting into gangs?

KURT VONNEGUT: Yes. Well, look, it's--

DAVID BRANCACCIO: A good gang.

KURT VONNEGUT: Look, I don't mean to intimidate you, but I have a master's degree in anthropology.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: I'm intimidated.

KURT VONNEGUT: From the University of Chicago-- as did Saul Bellow, incidentally. But anyway, one thing I found out was that we need extended families. We need gangs. And, of course, if they're tribes and clans and so forth have been dispersed by the industrial revolution by people looking for work wherever they can find it. And a nuclear family, a man, a woman and kids and a dog and cat is no survival scheme at all. Horribly vulnerable.

So yes, I tell people to formulate a little gang. And, you know, you love each other. ~ PBS, Oct. 2005


Kurt Vonnegut, a kind of 20th century Mark Twain, died at age 84. I remembered seeing him interviewed about his last book, and the above is the excerpt I thought was interesting.

Kurt didn't have a lot of hope for the survival of the human race, and he came from a family prone to suicide. He described himself as what I would call a dyed-in-the-wool humanist.

His prescription for individual survival was "join a gang." Coming from a trained anthropologist, this would be the way people always survived, by forming small communities. Take the Hell's Angels, for instance.

But it is an interesting solution to surviving in an apocalyptic world, and in a world that has lost community. Increasingly, people live in digital communities, connected by cell-phones and the Internet; but find themselves isolated and disconnected from families.

I remember the hippy communes of the sixties that typically failed. But they were not galvanized, perhaps, by a need to survive apocalypse. And the way to survive, anyway, does not work well around free sex and drugs. Orders of monks, though, have historically done quite well.

Hillary Clinton famously said, "It takes a village to raise a child." (I think she was referring to what it takes to parent a two-year-old.) Maybe we should think about amending that idea to "It takes a village to survive."

The gang that comes to my mind these days is the M-13 that started in L.A. Whenever these guys are jailed and fill up a penetentiary, we have shipped them off to other countries, where they became a global gang, and basically took up the mantle of the old Mafia.

But perhaps Christians should form gangs of their own. It's a thought.

The Junction of the Young Earth with the Old

James Ussher>(sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625–1656 and a prolific religious scholar who most famously published a chronology which calculated the date of Creation as October 22, 4004 BC. ~ wikipedia


Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of the God Elohim relatively recently (about 6,000 years ago). It is held by Christians and Jews who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis can only mean a literal six (24-Hour) day account of creation, that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today, and that scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism. ~ wikipedia


Since I wrote a book called 7K, I think I need to try to clear something up. 47% of Americans believe in a young earth because they take the Old Testament, and especially Genesis, literally. If you do this, as James Ussher proved, you come up with an earth that was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days almost 6,000 years ago. You can calculate this using the chronologies given in the Bible. So, taken literally, the Bible tells us that creation took place about 6K ago.

But that is not what we hear from archaeologists and geologists who tend to leave the Bible out of their calculations. For them, the picture is very different. Earth and mankind are very old ~ multiple millions of years are dealt with in these scenarios, and the origin of our planet details a very extensive story.

Hence, there is a definite tension between those who hold these differing approaches to history. Biblical literalists feel that evolution challenges the validity of the Bible while scientific realists are embarassed that so many still hold to the naive ideas put forth by Ussher.

These days I am trying to pull the two poles together in my thinking. I think it is interesting that the Bible seems to paint this beautiful 7-millennium picture and then backs it up with "facts" and figures. But why do nature and ruins seem to give us a very different picture?

A few months ago I saw a geological / astronomical timetable for the construction of the cosmos that fits the scientific data being daily compiled. The scientific case gets stronger while the literal biblical picture gets weaker under the weight of evidence. But the timetable itself, the events of this elongated pre-history, fit the first chapter of the Genesis chronology pretty nicely ~ even, to me, startlingly.

Yes, the Genesis account has to be seen differently, if that is the case. It becomes more of an allegorical account, like all the accounts of the ancients. Yet it still comes off as "inspired." It is a thing of beauty and it still rings true.

So how do we bridge this chasm in our American thinking? One answer is in "theistic evolution," which I won't discuss here. That is the idea that God created through the evolutionary process.

The trickiest problem winds up to be the first man, Adam. He can't be first if he was made 6 millennia ago and there is this long evolutionary ancestry behind him.

But there is still, to me, a beauty and accuracy in the 7K story, as presented by the Bible, that takes in the larger picture of the whole story of God and man, His creation. It does not deconstruct the scientific picture, it complements it. Science does not threaten to undo the Bible, nor vice-versa. The picture God gives is mystical, like a poem full of mystery and beauty, that simply doesn't yield entirely to literalism. It reduces something large and incomprehensible into the sound-byte of human history.

Somehow the biblical revelation and the scientific evidence actually fit together; they are not contrary. They splice into one continuum. And they all conjoin at the cross, about 4 millennia after Adam, when the second Adam secured a whole new covenant with God.

Immortal Man

Happy Easter! The verse below is Paul's description of and argument for resurrection.

The Resurrection Body

1Cor. 15:35 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

To me, this is an argument for a physical-body resurrection, and referring, in particular, to the church, or the ecclesia (assembly) of believers in Christ.

Specifically, Paul is talking about a change that takes place when the dead are raised. In later verses in this chapter he says this change is mysterious and that it will take place in an instant (kind of like Big Bang).

The picture right now is that we are presently in an "earthly" body that will be raised as a "spiritual" or "heavenly" body. He also says that the mortal will become immortal.

I could go on about what scriptures suggest that body might be like, but this is enough for now. Suffice to say, immortal man is coming. The human being idealized, in the exact image of God, like Jesus. And to whom will this happen? To the followers of the Lamb.

McLaren On Eschatology

Brian McLaren: I think that many of us from Evangelical backgrounds grew up with a sense of hopelessness about human history. We were taught to expect the return of Christ very soon, which entailed the destruction of the earth as we know it, with some new beginning on the other side, a new beginning characterized by radical discontinuity with this history. To care about earth's long-range future, then, became an act of unfaithfulness to God and the Bible. To invest in the earth's long-term survival seemed like a "humanist" thing to do. Thankfully, some Christians found ways to counteract this attitude of abandonment toward the earth and its history even within the "left behind" interpretive framework, but others of us still weren't satisfied.

By getting a fresh look at what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God - not an escape from this world, but the inbreaking of God's will into this world, not the abandonment of earth, but a radical, self-sacrificing commitment to it - we find ourselves being able to gratify desires - Spirit-inspired desires, I believe - to care about God's creation and its future.

Along with a fresh look at the kingdom, a number of people (from a variety of camps, many of which wouldn't agree with each other on many points) are realizing that many of the so-called apocalyptic passages in the gospels and the New Testament as a whole seem to find fulfillment in three related realities: a) the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 67-70, which included the end of the Temple and priestly sacrificial systems, and the continuity of a multi-cultural, Spirit-filled, globally-concerned community of faith.

Andrew Perriman finds fascinating connections to the phrase "Son of Man" from Daniel. Taken together, these insights suggest that the New Testament writers looked forward to something that we can look back on ... which, I think, motivates us to get on with the work of mission in a full and integrated sense, so that evangelism and social justice and ecology and the creation of good art and serving the poor and forgotten are deeply integrated facets of our mission. This, for me, adds sacredness and purpose to all of life, and further breaks down the old sacred-secular dualism.

All of this helps us reconnect to a more healthy and robust theology of creation too. Since it doesn't anticipate God discarding creation like a candy-wrapper, it gives us permission to love and cherish God's world - all facets of it - forests, economies, wild animals, weather, history, art, language, architecture, and soil.

The above is from an interview with Brian McLaren who is probably the most prominent "emergent" Christian leader. I like him because he challenges my cherished thinking. And that is precisely why many in the church don't like him.

Eschatology is a big word that means, basically, "the study of the last days." I have always been interested in this, but approached it from a fairly narrow view. We don't know there are other ways of looking at things until someone challenges us. This is especially hard for us when our views have become hardened and comfortable. Which is most of us.

When it comes to interpreting scripture, though, I have tried to simplify it. For the difficult passages we have to try to determine whether God is saying something literal or whether it is symbolic. Symbolic stuff is hard to process for those who approach scripture literally ~ that is, fundamentally or at face-value.

The other problem with prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments has to do with the time-frame the prophecy suggests. So those who study these things wind up defending their positions which are either past, present, or future.

Past and present tend to blend together and we usually call these interpreters historical in their perspective. Those who think the prophecies are yet future are, it follows, futurist in their orientation. The battle ensues. In this corner we have the challenger....

Let me recap on this:

Two ways to interpret scripture verses:
1) literal and
2) symbolic (or as metaphor).
It is usually pretty obvious if a verse is literal. Prophetic verses are less obvious. We want to avoid making something literal that is metaphorical, and vice-versa.

Two ways to interpret prophecies about "the end" or "the last days" or "the Second Coming." That is, you believe they either already happened or they are yet to happen:
past or future.

Sometimes these things can be combined as in "it happened partially but not yet fully." For instance, the whole world was evangelized by the early church in the first century. They went from Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria to the uttermost parts of the earth. So you could make a case for prophecy all being fulfilled. But, in our day, we cannot yet say that our present world is so evangelized. So that leaves the prophecies still open to a futuristic expectation as well.

Our problem is usually to try to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Combining theologies can help us be open-minded about problems we don't see that others struggle with. We don't have to understand everything about God; and He has obviously left some things open-ended. He hasn't told us everything.

So we may not get what we want, but, if we try, sometimes we'll get what we need. And, no, that is not a verse of scripture.

What Is The Salvation Test?

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

1Cor. 12:3
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Let me paraphrase this:

"If you can say 'Jesus is Lord', and believe that He was raised from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED," said Paul to the Romans.

"Anyone who can curse or belittle Jesus is not speaking by the Spirit of God. And nobody can call Jesus "Lord" without the Holy Spirit," said Paul to the church at Corinth.

I have occasionally interviewed people about this and found that some people can say it and some can't.

Who do you believe Jesus is? What is He?

I personally believe that Jesus IS God. And I can prove it by scripture. But it is by revelation that we understand this:

Matt. 16:13
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.



15He said unto them, But who do you say that I am?



16And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.



17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus asks, "Who do you men think I am?"

They say: "Well there are a lot of theories, sir."

Peter raises his hand. "You're the Savior, the Son of God, the promised Messiah. I mean, duh."

Jesus then says, "You got it, Simon. Because the Father has revealed it to you."

If you can't say this, dear friend, you don't have the revelation of Jesus Christ. If you can say this, you do. Because you say it by the Spirit of God. Not because someone told you, but He revealed it to you. This means you are in His family: He has chosen you. You are highly privileged just to be able to say that He is the One: and there is no other.

Recap of the above two verses:

You are saved and justified by your confession.

If you say "Jesus is Lord," it is because you have the Holy Spirit. If you can't say it, you don't.

1John 4:2 ~ "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

Basically, that's it. That's the spirit-test. Any questions?