The God of the Ordinary

“Every day the sun comes up, and then goes down again. And every day, God says, ‘do it again!’”

— Richard Mouw

You know the feeling. You wake up, make the coffee, wake the kids, get them ready, out the door, late to school, a thousand errands or long grind at work, get home, force homework, rush dinner, hose down the kids, books, bedtime, glass of wine, pass out. Repeat tomorrow.

Where is God in the mundane and the routine? Where is God in the rush of our lives? What does God think about the ordinary stuff that we do every day?

The lie of our culture is that God is only delighted in the extraordinary; the God who is only really happy when we do "great things", so much so that we orient our lives around the desire for greatness, if we don't achieve it, we are unhappy. In fact, we serve a God who loves the routine, the ordinary, the normal, and the everyday. A God who delights in seeing the world that he has made just work.

This morning I heard Dr. Richard Mouw preach on Psalm 104, and the quote above was one of his many observations. Every day, the sun comes up. Every day, it goes down. And the God who made it has the same delight, every day. With child-like joy, God says, "Do it again!"

I wonder how much more joy we would have if we viewed our daily work, whatever it might be, not as something holding us back from a sense of God's favor or his presence, but in fact the very thing in which we were supposed to be experiencing his presence. Our lives would take on new meaning; our routine a new sense of purpose. No longer are we just getting through. Now, even the mundane things I do are an opportunity to experience the wonder of God's ordering of the universe. Every piece of buttered toast or completed homework or brushed tooth brings delight to the God who loves the ordinary. Every day is a day we wake up with God and hear him excitedly say to us, "let's do it again!"

50 Years After the Dream

There is one line in Martin Luther King Jr’s famous “I have a Dream” speech that has always stood out to me. One line that makes the difference between a segregated America and a unified America.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

It matters much more to me now, as my kids continue to grow up and I notice more and more the influences of society, culture, entertainment, and the media generally. It matters to me because I don’t want my kids to think that their outward appearance is what defines them. They are much more than what you see the first time you look at them. They are God’s kids. They are my kids. All of them like to snuggle. They are crazy and funny. Michael is gentle and likes attention. Anthony loves to wrestle and play video games. Jada is strong and loud. The older three love their two baby sisters. Avery talks a lot. Nora crawls out of her crib when you think she’s sleeping. And oh yeah, somewhere down the list, a few of them have brown skin and a couple of them have light skin.

My older three kids know that they have brown skin. And they know that I don’t. They say that they have “brown” skin and I have “bright” skin, whatever that means.

My children won’t experience most of what Martin Luther King Jr. was standing up against in 1963. There aren’t signs that say “white’s only” on bathroom stalls. They don’t go to a segregated school, and actually attend a school that celebrates diversity. They’ll be able to vote. They don’t live in a ghetto. Their opportunity for upward mobility isn’t “moving from a small ghetto to a large ghetto”. And I feel pretty confident in saying that they won’t deal with random police brutality based solely on the color of their skin. (Don’t miss the forest for the trees on that one. Does it still happen? Probably. Does it still happen like it did in 1963, where people were being straight up beaten to a pulp–simply for the color of their skin? Doubtful.)

But for all that they won’t need to experience, there’s one that I’m worried they won’t be able to escape. When most people look at them, the first thing they notice is that they’re black.

Now, let me be clear: noticing differences is a natural condition of the human mind. It’s almost impossible to escape. Pretending that we’re “color-blind” is, in the words of Mr. Brown as he taught diversity training at Dunder-Mifflin, “fighting ignorance with more ignorance.”

What I don’t want is for people to notice that they have brown skin, and then assume that they are going to act a certain way; I don't want them to assume something about their character based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately we live in a society that connects color with culture, as if you can’t have one without the other. It’s when we see a brown-skinned person and assume that he or she is just like them, whoever the “them” is. Why is he just like them? One reason. The only one we can see. Her skin is the same color. We’re making a judgment about who a person is based on the color of their skin. We’re prejudiced people. (prejudice (n): preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.)

This is why I don’t like the phrase “black culture”. What is "black culture"? Don’t make assumptions about what my kids might like, enjoy, how they will act, behave, the kind of jobs they can or can’t get–or will desire to have–based on the color of their skin. And don't settle for that yourself.

I cringe when I’m watching a TV show and a character makes a statement about being “black.” Usually it’s in response to something they’ve done, a certain way of thinking, or some other thing that is easy enough to explain away simply by saying, “It’s because I’m black.” I get that it’s almost always done in a humorous way. In most shows, it’s intended to be comedic, the way that you’d understand that I was joking if I said that the reason I like mayonnaise is because I’m white. 

The thing is, I wonder when the day will come when my sons or daughter will notice the character on TV and ask, “Daddy, am I supposed to act that way too, since I have brown skin?” I don’t want anyone to tell my kids that the color of their skin determines the choices they can make in life, how they are allowed to think, what they are allowed to do, or the kind of things they are allowed to enjoy.

Sometimes, Michael will have a moment where he realizes we look different and he’ll ask why. Sometimes, he’ll say that he wishes we didn’t look different. He wishes that his skin was like mine; really he just wishes we looked the same. What I hope he knows as he gets older is that there is beauty in our differences. They just don’t have to define us. The color of our skin doesn’t define us; not him, not me.

What defines us is what God thinks of us. And although man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart. (1 Sam. 16:7). There really are only two races of people: Adam’s race, and Jesus’ race. In Adam, difference reigns, and the division is the result. In Jesus, unity and freedom reign. (Romans 5). The old distinctions don’t go away–this is the beauty of the mosaic of the body of Christ–they just don’t matter in the economy of the new kingdom (Galatians 3:28). What God thinks is that he loves us a lot and wants us to be his kids forever. (Ephesians 1)

In an America obsessed with entertainment, I challenge you to consider whether we truly judge by the content of a person’s character, or by their outward appearance. So long as outward appearance is our chief focus, unity, and ultimately the freedom that Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his life for, will continue to elude us...

The full transcript of Dr. King’s speech can be found here:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

Resurrection and What it Means for Marriage

I heard a quote recently from someone who was asked about what the Bible says about homosexuality and marriage. The person responded, “The first thing I ask is whether or not they believe that Jesus rose from the dead. If they say no, then I ask them why they care what he thinks about anything. If they say yes, then we can have a different type of discussion about what Jesus believed about issues like this.”

Most Christian’s don’t know what they believe about marriage, or why they believe it. Is there any reason to have confidence in what they think is true? For the Christian, the answer–and ultimately the place we find our confidence–stems from the core conviction of our faith. Did Jesus rise from the dead, or not?

Resurrection trumps dying, every time.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead–or if someone doesn’t believe that he did–then there is no reason for us or them to be concerned with how he calls us to live. If Jesus was just a first century rabbi who taught about being a good person, but ultimately died like the rest of us, then his words have the equivalent authority of every other religious prophet or teacher who came before or after. They’re easy to dismiss; we should pay them the same mind as we might pay the instructions of Muhammad.

If, however, Jesus really did rise from the dead, then what was proved was that he was who he said he was: God in the flesh. That changes everything. If Jesus is God, then what he says about how we should live has real meaning; now it has authority. What Jesus believed about how God calls us to live should matter.

Jesus believed that the entirety of the Old Testament was God’s word. He consistently upheld it as having authority. He upheld the Old Testament Law of God when he claimed that not a single iota or a single dot would pass from the Law until all was accomplished, and his new Kingdom was in full force at the end of days. And what the law and the Old Testament as a whole affirm is that marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman. That is what Jesus believed; it’s part of the “will not pass away”.

The resurrection gives us a new view towards marriage that restores the original intention. Marriage in the Old Testament was a mess; most people couldn’t get it right, even when they tried. Christ’s life, death and resurrection reveal what Paul articulates in Ephesians 5: the real meaning behind marriage was actually always about Jesus and his church. When God gave Adam and Eve to one another in marriage back at the beginning of the Bible, the institution itself was a shadow of a greater reality, which was God’s relationship with his people.

Marriage is rooted in creation and restored in Christ. That’s why orthodox Christianity doesn’t believe in a progressive hermeneutic (the so-called telephone theory). This is the view that biblical truth changes over time as culture “progresses” and our understanding of things evolves and changes, similar to the old game of “telephone” that you’d play in grade school. Orthodox Christianity bases its view on God’s original intention and design, affirmed, supported, and restored in Christ, and not on what seems right to us, particularly those of us living 2000 years after the resurrection.

Christian people are called to view marriage through that lens as the chief understanding of what marriage is. One man, one woman, called to reflect the reality of Christ and his church. The resurrection gives them hope that they can, in some small way, pull it off, but only because Jesus has already pulled off the greatest marriage proposal in history by dying and rising from the dead. The resurrection gives single people hope, too, since we know that this life is just a blip on the radar of eternity, and marriage won’t be a relational institution in the kingdom of heaven, since we will all live in the reality of what it formerly represented.

The resurrection means new citizenship.

The resurrection is the catalyst for this view towards the new kingdom that is to come. When we are associated with Jesus through faith in his life, death, and resurrection for our salvation, we are made citizens of a new kingdom, where Jesus is king. Our allegiances have changed. We live in this world; but our citizenship is found in the next. We are called to live according to a different standard; a different set of rules.

The history of American Evangelicalism has revealed what biblical scholars usually refer to as an “over-realized eschatology”. Eschatology is the study of the “end times”, or in this case, the study of the Kingdom of God and what that is going to be like when Jesus returns. Over-realizing our eschatology means that we go overboard in assuming that this life–the American life–will look like the new kingdom of which we are citizens. In other words, we’ve drawn too close a parallel between the United States and the Kingdom of God, as if the former is called to reflect all of the values of the latter. Consequently, Christians have too often assumed that the government will promote their particular values, and they are shocked when they discover resistance. The resurrection reminds us that the United States is not the new kingdom.

As such, Christians must take care to discern the difference between the values they are called to live by as citizens of a new kingdom, and the values that everyone should hold by virtue of being a human, and more specifically, a citizen of the United States. Christians are called to the biblical view of marriage because of the resurrection of Christ. But not everyone will hold that view. In fact, the majority of people won’t. By allowing the government to define what marriage is, we’re also giving them the freedom to define it in a way that we disagree with. That’s why the Christian must define marriage based on the resurrection of our new King, according to the values of the new kingdom. Our confidence shouldn’t be in the government, or in those who don’t believe in the resurrection, to define it exactly as we see fit, and we won’t be disappointed when they inevitably don’t.

A far better approach for Christians in handling the marriage debates would have been to encourage the government to get out of the marriage definition bit altogether! The government’s question should be, what type of relationships will we grant benefits to, and which ones won’t we? So long as they are continuing to call those government recognized relationships “marriages”, then whatever the cultural definition of it is will win the day. We are seeing the implications of that now.

Failure to understand the resurrection.

The failure to recognize the authority that comes with the resurrection, and the new citizenship we have as a result is the reason that most Christians are confused about how they ought to respond. If they’re not confused, they’re angry. If they’re not angry, they’re depressed. How could this have happened? Jesus death reminds us that the new kingdom values are antithetical to the way that most of us want to live, but his resurrection gives us hope to press on.

The failure to recognize the authority that comes with the resurrection is also what leads Christians to reject the teaching of Scripture on marriage altogether, and to redefine it according to what will be popular in this life. It has always been the case that there will be a segment of the Christian population that sacrifices doctrine for the sake of acceptance, and history consistently repeats itself in the same manner: it never works. If there is no difference between the values of the Jesus of Christianity and the Jesus of culture (who is all about love, however we define that), then there really is no need for the Jesus of Christianity.

It’s also important to note, however, that the failure to recognize the authority that comes with the resurrection is also what leads to the horrendous track record that Christians have, even in their supposed biblical marriages. And the culture has noticed.

How should we respond?

Because of the resurrection, the Christian person can be confident that what Jesus believed is true, and they can be confident in living out the values of the new kingdom. Our covenant marriages between a man and a woman should reflect that reality. New kingdom marriages should stand out as examples of self-sacrificial love. They should mirror, as best they are able, the great love that Jesus has for his church, and that she has for her savior.

Because of the resurrection, the Christian person can love those who disagree. Religious people always want to know what someone believes about morality, or how they behave, before they can accept them. That’s why the religious leaders of Jesus day could never hang out with people who they considered to be “sinners”. True Christianity is not religion. Jesus knew that it was only once people knew that he loved them right where they were at that they could even have the possibility of being able to live according to the standards of the new kingdom. And even then, they’d probably fail miserably. It’s the reason that Christians are given the righteousness of Christ in full measure, not dependent on anything that we bring to the table.

Because of the resurrection, the Christian is free to not force their values on someone who believes differently. Instead, a Christian is free to live like the resurrection is really true, that Jesus is really who he said he was, and that the power of his life, death, and resurrection is sufficient to save.

This Good Friday and Easter, spend some time reflecting on the goodness of Jesus and the power of his life, death, and resurrection, to save sinners like all of us. Then live in the confidence of the new kingdom.

Death by Religion

Jesus reserves his harshest words for religious people. As a recovering religiouholic, those stern warning continue to stand out to me. I get them.

In Matthew 9, we see Jesus calling one of the tax collectors, Matthew (the author of the Gospel), to follow him. Matthew probably remembers the scene vividly. He may have had some interest in Jesus, he may have known who he was, and in his soul, he may have longed to follow him and become one of his disciples. Unfortunately, Rabbis, and religious people in general, didn’t associate with him because of his profession, and maybe because of his attitude. He may have wanted Jesus, but Jesus didn’t want him. Matthew had been conditioned by the religion of his day. Religious people don’t hang out with sinners.

Imagine Matthew’s shock when Jesus walks by, takes one look, and says, “follow me.” Whatever emotion he experienced in the moment is unrecorded. All we know is that Matthew got up, left his stuff behind, and followed Jesus.

As surprising as it was that Jesus called Matthew, what is unsurprising is that after he does it, word spreads quickly that Jesus, the great miracle worker, the great teacher, is a friend of the riffraff. Pretty soon they’re all joining him for lunch at his house. If Jesus hadn’t already stirred up the anger of the religious people, he was about to.

Pulling aside a couple of Jesus disciples, they ask them in hushed voices why Jesus, the teacher, would eat with such lowly sinners. Jesus hears the question. And then, in a stunning display of authority over those who claimed to know the Scripture and have the greatest grasp of the Word of God, Jesus tells them to “Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

That stings.

It stings because I think I’m a pretty good person. It stings because there is a part of me that still wants to believe that I can be at least somewhat righteous on my own efforts. It stings because I think, surely, Jesus saved me because he thinks I’d be an asset to the kingdom of heaven.

But what he really wants is my repentance. And that’s it.

King David understood that he had nothing to offer God. In his great Psalm of repentance, Psalm 51, after being caught in adultery, conspiracy, and murder, David knows that he’s a mess. If he didn’t know it before, now he’s got proof. He could have gone the religious route and started making sacrifices; doing penance for his sins. But he doesn’t. It won’t work. The only sacrifice that matters is a “broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for sinners is a gift for broken, messed up people, who have turned to him in faith. It’s not because of our good deeds. In fact, if you think you have any righteousness in you, you’ll need to repent of that first! Only Jesus can stand before God and gets his approval. The rest of us get in because we stand behind him.

The crazy work of the Gospel is that once that reality has grasped our hearts, God suddenly enjoys and delights in our “good works”. Paul tells us that we have been saved to do these good works; that these good works were prepared beforehand for us to do (Eph. 2:10). David understands in Psalm 51 that eventually God will enjoy his sacrifices; it’s just that it can only come following God’s grace, and David’s repentance.

Religious people put the cart before the horse. They think their good deeds trump the Gospel–or at least, that their good deeds work in unison with the Gospel for their salvation (putting the cart on the horse?). Jesus says, I’ve come to call sinners­, not those who do good deeds.

The Gospel message is that there is nothing you’ve done, can do, or will do, that will restore or maintain your relationship with God. Only Jesus can restore your relationship with God, and only Jesus can keep you in relationship with God. His benefits are applied to us through faith–and even that is a gift!

To say it another way, it is only through Jesus that sinners are free to live in the presence of God once again. And it is only because we are free to live in the presence of God, that we are free to love in the presence of our neighbors.