Churching in the Rain

Several months after graduating from college with a ministry degree, I was still looking for a church to serve. During this search a friend persuaded me to move to South Korea with him. My prayer at the time was I would be fine with going as long as I could do ministry. That ministry blessedly turned out to be Juan English Ministry in Incheon.

When I learned the ministry recently celebrated their 15th Anniversary, Pastor Joshua Ro kindly sent me an anniversary gift the church had made for her members—an umbrella.

I found this both amusing and appropriate for a ministry in Korea. Umbrellas are sold everywhere in every design. If citizens aren’t using umbrellas to shield themselves from the sun, they’re definitely using them during Korea’s torrential monsoon season. I can’t remember how many umbrellas I bought, broke, or lost during my time there. But when I received the umbrella today in the mail and saw the Juan English Ministry emblem on the fabric, I felt an even deeper appreciation.

The days following my move to Incheon were difficult. There was culture shock, loneliness, emotional instability. For a few weeks I went to my friend’s church about an hour away; it was fine. Then one Sunday a guest minister visited and advertised his congregation which happened to be located just a few blocks from where I lived. After visiting the following week, it felt like a community I needed to join. In the days and weeks that followed, I met new people, worshipped with them, prayed with them, studied the Bible with them, ate meals with them, fellowshipped with them, participated with them in various activities. They helped me to settle into the rhythm of life there. They relieved me of loneliness, protected me from isolation, provided me with purpose, and kept my flame from getting doused. In short, the JEM community was an umbrella.

As is befitting the business of the Church, JEM has regularly opened and outspread such blessedness to countless many from Korea and all over the world. Just as Christ covers the Church with His blood, JEM has covered so many in their love. As the years continue, I pray that however many seek shelter from life’s storms will find in JEM a holy gathering huddled beneath the warmth of God’s embrace with always room enough for more.


Why the Church needs to elaborate on love

By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the Jewish people’s relationship to the Law had grown complicated. Since they returned to their land from exile, they made such a concerted effort to avoid the lawlessness that had led to exile that they not only pledged to keep the Mosaic law, but they also erected additional traditions as a fence around the Law. As dedicated an effort it was intended to be, it ultimately resulted in a congestion that not only wound tightly around the neck of the people’s life of worship but also undermined it with hypocrisy. There was no clear line of sight into the heart of God.

So when he was eventually and, appropriately, asked by a lawyer which commandment of the law was the greatest, Jesus’ reply provided welcomed clarity. He answered “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Mt22:37-40).

So impactful was Jesus’ statement here that Paul echoed it in his own writings (Rom13:8-10, Gal5:14,). Jesus and Paul were both comfortable summarizing the Law as love because they knew their audience possessed an abundance of detailed knowledge of the Law; so much, in fact, that a summary was necessary. To this day, Jesus’ love summarization is one we have rightly come to rely on in our attempt to understand God’s demand on our lives.

A summary is only useful, however, as long as knowledge of what is being summarized is retained and appreciated. When the summarization becomes so constantly used that the specific details being summarized are no longer remembered or esteemed, it has become a generalization. Such is the situation I believe may be facing the Church today.

Many churches and ministers are so grateful for whatever attention span their congregations give that instead of spending it fixating on complex topics requiring explanation and nuance, they opt for simplicity, hence the appeal of the love summarization. Similarly, as Scripture’s complexities raise issues of holiness, communal obligations, or dealing with political ideologies and allegiances, the love summarization quickly provides much less tension and divide. Therefore, the desire of simplicity and the summarization of love are understandable avenues for maximizing one’s message in a short amount of time. Having said that, however, an over-reliance on the love summarization can inevitably lead to liabilities.

One, as Bible reading and literacy decreases, so does knowledge and understanding of its vast but critical narratives and theologies. Like a high-schooler’s preference for Wikipedia entries instead of reading the original material, the summarization of love becomes preferred to the appreciation of God’s Scriptural revelation.

Second, the love summarization, in and of its abstract self, carries no explicit moral impetus. During my freshmen year at a Christian college, I went to a store with another ministry student. He stole an item in front of me. When I objected, his response was that I needed to be more loving because God is love. When the concept of love becomes an enabler of lawlessness, what harmony or good does it or can it claim to represent or promote?

Finally, “Love” in its popular usage doesn’t necessarily require an acknowledging of the person and priorities of King Jesus. Consider the COEXIST bumper sticker; while every group featured there would uphold or celebrate “Love”, they are philosophically indifferent or opposed to King Jesus and what he demands. So, while in the Church “Jesus=Love” (maybe), outside of the Church, “Love” doesn’t carry the same gospel distinction, and is, therefore, insufficient as a tool in conveying the comprehensive reality of Jesus.

The summarization Jesus and Paul employed to demonstrate how love is the sum of the Law was a helpful and necessary one at the time. It provided much needed clarity into the heart of God. But if the Church’s use of that summarization begins to nurture an ignorance of Scriptural reality, or an indifference to its demands on our lives or to King Jesus himself, that summarization then requires a thorough unpacking. Churches and Christians would thus benefit greatly from education of a more developed quality. A kind that moves away from the inspirational pop theology characterizing many pulpits today, and instead digs into the texts, examines and discusses the hard topics, expanding upon the simplicities and the love summarizations to allow for an appreciation of the inherent details, complexities, and nuance to take root and flourish. Jesus and Paul’s love summary was a gift; it only remains a gift when there is an appreciation and allegiance to what it was summarizing.

Joshua Jipp-Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology [Review]

Joshua Jipp’s Christ is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology was a book I needed to read.

Many of my own kingdom-related studies through the years have been generally limited to the gospels and Old Testament, while Paul’s writings usually play a minimal role because his kingdom references have not seemed as frequent or explicit. This and other factors, like Paul’s distinct style and content, occasionally make one wonder if Paul was on the same page with what Jesus envisioned. Jipp makes an ultimately strong argument that he was, equipped with an ideology whose insights would uniquely and relevantly translate to his Jewish and Gentile audiences as good news.

Jipp begins by stating Paul’s favorite moniker for Jesus—Christ (Messiah)—being more than the proper name we treat it as, is an honorific title carrying connotations rich with royalty. He repeatedly proves this by showing how Israel’s messianic imagery is historically, legally, conceptually, and theologically rooted in the Davidic kingship, thereby elevating the messianic role to the actual work of kings. Following this partial framing of the Messiah as a royal figure, Jipp spends the rest of chapter one exploring the kingship discourse found in Greek and Roman literature and philosophy, proposing Paul was inspired to additionally employ and rework their ideology as the construct that most appropriately depicts Jesus the Messiah as King. The rest of the book examines how specific and significant passages of Paul’s writings express his refracting of these ideologies in the establishing of his royal ideology of Jesus.

In chapter two, Jipp first references the tendency of ancient kings to be viewed as “living laws” or living embodiments of what their deities had declared was right for their people. From there, he focuses upon Moses’ Deuteronomy 17 command to future Israelite kings to record for themselves a copy of the Law they were to read and keep throughout their lives as a model of Torah-obedience. Jipp then discusses how Galatians 5:14 and 6:2 (and Romans 13:8-15:13) is Paul’s depiction of Jesus as “living law”, his life perfectly encapsulating everything God required of the true Israelite and a good Israelite king.

Chapter three’s “King and Hymns” focuses first on the ancient selections of Greek and Roman poetry exalting their kings for great deeds done in honor of their deities, in demonstration of their divine-like character, and as benefactions to the people he ruled over. Jipp then compares this to the content of many royal psalms praising God’s appointed king, whose own righteousness is to reflect God and shapes the righteousness of Israel’s people. Jipp then examines how Colossians 1:15-20 and Philippians 2:6-11 are hymns Paul uses to inculcate within the churches a communal and participatory adoration for Christ the King who has done great deeds and works which proclaim God’s greatness.

Chapter four, “King and Kingdom”, continues the themes of the previous chapter by examining how the great deeds of the king enable his people to share and participate in his rule. Together with the Colossian and Philippian hymns Jipp examines how Romans 1:3-6, as Paul’s gospel thesis, sets a royal trajectory of Jesus’ identity, narrative, humiliation, and resurrection with eschatological implications in which his people have been allowed to share.

In the final chapter, “King and Righteousness”, Jipp explores various Davidic psalms together with Isaiah’s suffering servant songs before attempting to make sense of Paul’s Romans-language of righteousness and justice. He concludes that God’s righteousness is ultimately revealed in the resurrection of the Messiah, whose faith being obedient unto death shows him to be the “righteous one”. This justification comes with eschatological life and destiny in which the Messiah’s people are enabled to share. Jipp clarifies Paul’s distinct language makes the most sense within the royal and political framework of a God sharing kingship with the righteous king who shares his righteousness with his people.

The Kingdom of God has long been the good news that has shaped my life; yet for some time I have desired a deeper appreciation for the inner Christological components of that reality. Joshua Jipp’s book delivers just that. By including detailed references to the ancient literature that may have helped inform Paul’s inspiration, Jipp reminds readers of how context helps illuminate a great many wonderful things. By going to great explanatory lengths to demonstrate the royal vision of Jesus captivating Paul, Jipp brings the readers into an embarrassment of riches that nurtures a far greater appreciation of Paul and his theology than we may have ever known. With these insights added to the Church’s collective thinking, the more blessed will be her participation in the life of the King.

Avoiding the sin of David’s census in the Church

During a recent discipling session, I was asked why King David’s census was a sin. Dissatisfied with the answer I gave, I chose to reexamine the passage for deeper clarity.

Before reading 2 Samuel 24, the text regarding David’s census, I suggest reading Exodus 19:3-6, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, and 1 Samuel 8, which I briefly summarize below.

Ex 19:3-6—The people of Israel were to be a kingdom of priests, a nation whose entire existence was to embody and exemplify the harmony of holiness that flowed from active allegiance to God’s rule.

Dt 17:14-20—Were Israel ever to have a king, Moses clarifies his duty would be that of a lawful steward who practiced God’s law first as an example for all the people.

1 Samuel 8—Israel demanded a king who would rule them like other nations. While permitting this displeasing request, God also had the prophet Samuel warn them what they were in for.

The text of 2 Samuel 24 begins with God being angry, again, with Israel. The text doesn’t say why. Whatever the reason, it’s David’s response that exacerbates the situation and becomes the story being told here. The last time God was angry with Israel, David’s response was to seek his presence and make amends. This time David’s response is to take a census of the people. Based on the results in 2 Samuel 24:9, it appears its purpose was to raise a national army. David, however, soon realizes he has sinned greatly. But how so? Censuses were taken in the past. Why was this one different?

Ever since the incident with Bathsheba, David’s reign had grown to resemble the kind of kingships Moses and Samuel had warned the people about, which God had never wanted Israel to have. By raising a standing national army, the census would be another step toward Israel becoming the kind of kingdom they were never called to be. In the past, Israel’s sanctioned wars with other nations only occurred when God used them to purge the Canaanite nations whose culture and way of life God had marked for judgment. Once these God-sanctioned wars were complete, the God-sanctioned army of Israel disbanded and went to live in their tribal-allotted lands. Throughout David’s rule, the soldiers following and fighting for him were of his own tribe or kin (2 Samuel 23), a growing point of contention amongst other tribes of Israel (2 Samuel 19:41-43). The raising of a standing national army would push Israel further towards their demanded desire to be “like other nations” rather than God’s priestly people. David’s census, therefore, augmented Israel’s rejection of God as their King.

What possibly compounds the sinfulness of David’s decision, however, is the motive. Reacting to God’s anger, David’s decision is a preventative measure against the possibility of an invading army. But if that army were being brought against him as part of God’s judgment, then David’s use of Israel’s national army would be tantamount to opposing God. The census is the contemplation of raising an army from amongst God’s people to defend God’s king against the LORD their God who saved and called them to be his purposeful people. David is here being the kind of king God never wanted Israel to have. This contemplation by the “man after God’s own heart” to undermine God’s covenant with such an initiative verifies why nationalization posed such a danger to Israel’s identity as a people whose purpose was to bless all the families of the world. Adulterating their God-shaped uniqueness, nationalization would indeed make them like all the nations. Israel’s united kingdom only lasted three kings before it split. David’s son, Solomon, would give Israel the final fragmenting push. Israel wanted a kingdom like all the nations; they got one.

By contrast, David’s decision also underlines why, if Israel was ever to fully become the kingdom of priests through whom God would bless the world, they would need a King fully endowed with God’s holy character to show them how. A king, not like that of the nations, but of heaven, who would enact God’s will on earth.

Jesus’ tenet to “Seek first the kingdom of God” would correct this tendency of God’s people to prioritize policies that compete with God’s rule, whether it was the first century Jewish commonwealth or the current “America First” policy, or simply the usual “Me First” philosophy. By seeking Jesus’ “kingdom first” policy, we order our lives around, not the sameness of nations, but the uniqueness of Jesus’ reign by which God is restoring humanity to the harmony born of God’s holiness.

What the Church might yet learn from Billy Graham

I must confess I struggle to know what the term Evangelical means anymore. I know that in the Greek, it originally meant good news or gospel. While I find that to be the most clarifying sense of the word, for over many years now it seems to have also taken on nuances of historical nostalgia, political influence, and attitudes similar to those who might pursue and preserve power. It’s a word whose many connotations I find difficult to fully comprehend. It has a lot of baggage with it that has burdened its original intention to convey God’s good news. For that reason, I rarely use it or readily identify with it.

This morning I woke up to the news that the Reverend Billy Graham had passed into God’s good presence. I know of Billy Graham the same as what everybody knows, that he was a preacher of Jesus Christ. While I wish I knew more about him, when it comes down to it, that is what he essentially was. A man who devoted his life to travelling from city to city, state to state, country to country preaching the good news about Jesus. In a culture that frequently esteems complexity and nuance, it’s amazing to think a man of such simplicity impacted the world so greatly.

In a sense, that simple essence helps remind and clarify what it might mean to be evangelical. A person whose life reveals God’s good news.

Reverend Graham’s passing comes at a time in our history where so much of the country is embroiled in a chaotic divisiveness of which the Church is very much a part. What role the Church goes on to play amidst this chaos will greatly depend on whose rule or kingdom we are seeking.

In Reverend Graham’s death and our looking back at the simple essence he was about, maybe the Church can be reminded that our essence is not about leveraging power to progress an agenda, but to be those whose lives really convey God’s good news.

My Dad once told me a story that when Richard Nixon received the presidential nomination at the Republican convention, he invited friend Billy Graham to a backroom with other friends and politicians where there would likely be smoking, drinking, cussing, political discourse. Ruth Graham, however, pulled Billy aside and said, “That’s no place for the man of God.”

Our place is to make much of Jesus and embody his way of living that conveys the uniqueness of God’s good news. It is a mission for which Reverend Graham labored long; now that his labors are over, his labors are now ours. As we take them up, let us be careful to leave the baggage behind. May we take up his labor of love in such a way that conveys news that is truly good.

Does the old covenant nullify Jesus’ teachings?

Some time ago it was put to me that since Jesus’ teachings were delivered prior to his crucifixion, they fell under the old covenant and are, therefore, irrelevant.

Uncertain of the logic at work, I was unsure how to immediately respond. Perhaps it was a form of Marcionism applied to all events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion. Maybe it was an interpretation of Jesus’ last supper words “this is the new covenant in my blood” that presumed the whole of the new covenant’s reality exists only after his blood was shed. Whatever the case, if the statement is followed to its logical conclusion, it essentially discards everything Jesus said, did, and, ultimately, requires of us. Therefore, lest such a notion flourish within the Church community, I wish to share three brief thoughts on the establishing of the new covenant.

First, while the new covenant was certainly certified and initiated at the cross, the reality of the new covenant’s good news was initially established at the start of John the baptizer’s ministry. In Luke 16:16, Jesus says “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed”.

The law and the prophets constituted the reality of the old covenant. John’s message heralded the impending new covenant. Where the herald of the king is, there is the reality of the imminent king. How much more when the king actually appears?

Secondly, therefore, as God’s Spirit incarnate, Jesus’ arrival and ministry simultaneously fulfilled the righteous requirements of the old covenant while also transformatively establishing the reality and essence of the new covenant. In his earliest recorded sermon, Jesus began “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt5:17-19).

How is it that the old covenant passes away but its law does not? By becoming something else, what it was always meant to be—holiness distinguishing the heart of God in us. Not a system of works-righteousness, but worship lived in responsive conformity to the righteousness the King embodied on our behalf.

Finally, through Jesus’ death as the inaugural sacrifice, the new covenant is initiated as the living standard for all who would follow him. The old covenant followed the same pattern. Moses delivered the law to the Israelite people (Ex19-23), then the people pledged to obey it (Ex24:3). After Moses offered sacrifices (Ex24:4-6), he identified the blood as what notarized the covenant that then defined the relationship between God and his people (Ex24:7). Jesus mirrors this imagery at the last supper when he says, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt26:28).

Having received forgiveness, we now answer God’s grace with a response of obedience proportionate to what his new covenant requires of us.

Why does this material matter?

John Bright writes “Repelled by all legalism, we have come close to the point of apologizing for any duty religion seems to involve, nay, have offered a religion almost without the demand of duty at all. Can it be that in casting off all religious duty, we have ended up admitting no duty—save to ourselves? It is time that we heeded the lesson of the Holy Commonwealth: that religion, aside from all that it does for man, lays before him a duty and demands that he do it. Christianity does involve duty. And that duty is to obey God, not in general and as it is convenient, but in every detail, and without exception.”

Brought to life as his Church, we are a covenant-people whose culture is to distinguish a holiness and worship that reveals in us the heart upon which God has said “I will put my law” (Jer31:33).

A thought for when nothing seems to matter

Fun fact: If in certain seasons you’ve struggled with the thought that nothing matters, you are viewing the world through the lenses of nihilism. Stemming from the Latin word meaning “nothing”, nihilism is, writes philosophy professor James Sire, “more of a feeling than a philosophy. Nihilism is not a philosophy at all but a denial of philosophy, of knowledge, of anything valuable, even existence itself.”

I myself am tempted on occasion into this way of feeling. Sometimes it comes in seasons of frustration, isolation, or anger. Sometimes exaggerated shadows in my mind will induce panic or anxiety, or I may even just slip into the darkness of indifference.

How do I then try to turn my philosophical frown upside down? I try to remember an inversion—ex nihilo! 

Stemming from the same Latin word, ex nihilo is a phrase made in reference to God’s means of creation—“out of nothing”. Though acknowledging a void, the phrase’s focus is upon what God chooses to do with that void.

The psalmist beautifully writes “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth…For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Ps33:6,9).

Whereas nihilism denies existence has any meaning, ex nihilo declares that meaning comes from beyond existence. God takes nothingness and calls existence into being. Nothingness is the canvas God makes his masterpiece.

Whenever you wonder if nothing matters, remember God made matter from nothing. Having come into existence by God’s allowance, we have left nothingness behind. We matter because we are God-made matter.

We are not abandoned to a void but within this reality being brought towards the renewal of all things, we are creation’s centerpieces whose worth flows from out of the resplendence of God’s power and creativity.