Death is a strange celebrity. In our media-driven society there is a peculiar posthumous appraisal for those we have unabashedly scrutinized (i.e. Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse). For example, while living, these contemptible celebrities were ridiculed, mocked, scorned for public amusement, left to dead; now dead, they are immortalized, purified, celebrated, forgiven. What was it about life that made us abhor them and death that made us adore them? This sudden revere of a celebrity’s worth only after fatality is a disturbing peephole into the cultural condition: We fear death and will manipulate and excuse any past perception to alleviate deaths reality.

Our fear of death also manifests itself in life’s goals and schedules. The hurried achiever will rush his/her existence with ceaseless experiences and achievements, collecting personal successes before that inevitable demise. The passive spectator will sit idly in numbing monotony fearing risk and effort as though it were death. Whatever the pace of life, humanity behaves out of the fear of aging and extinction; and in the meantime, will garner legitimate or erroneous activities of self-validation before kicking the inescapable bucket.

Look no further then news media to illustrate our humanity’s dread of termination. The talking heads of cable news get paid to suckle on the cadaverous breasts of fear and death. Hired to convince the mass population that there is nourishing milk inside the constant outflow of panic news entertainment. The 24/7 outsource of the world’s distress has programmed viewers to believe that up-to-date information on crisis will provide a sense of security from harm. In this twisted way, the influx of perpetual fear becomes our reliable comfort.

For those who trust Jesus though, death should not be feared. We have been invited to approach looming death with His inexhaustible life. This truth should alter the book-ends of our mortal timeline. It should rattle out our obsessive fixations on forthcoming dread.  Our existence does not have to be rushed or ignored. Our experiences and successes do not have to be gorged. You will go on living beyond the tombstone. Life eternal will have great moments and opportunities. Live your life with that in mind. For those in Jesus, death is a segue not a conclusion.

Have you ever heard people say they want to know what God’s will is for their life?

If you study all the Scriptures that talk about God’s will, it seems as if they all have something in common. It’s as if they communicate God’s will being the perfect balance of love and holiness.

Theologian, J.I. Packer suggests the Scriptures refer to three different facets of God’s will: The Ultimate will, the Revealed will, and the Permissive will. God has one will just as he is only one God,  but Packer suggests that one will has three facets (three in one).

The Ultimate will acknowledges that God is sovereign or supreme. In this we understand that nothing ever happens that is outside His will. Ephesians 1:11 says that he works all things according to the counsel of his will. This doesn’t necessarily mean he causes things to happen, just that he permits them. This is the hidden part of his will, containing things that we don’t know will happen until… after they happen.

The Revealed will is just what it sounds like: the part of God’s will that is revealed to us. And it is revealed through the Bible and our conscience. The more our conscience is in line with God’s word the more we walk in his will. If the word of God is in us, then the will of God comes out of us.

The Permissive will. This is the part of his will that exposes his attitude and it defines what pleases him. For instance we know that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, however he still wills or decrees it. Jesus said the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but they will inherit death. But that doesn’t mean God takes pleasure in that. As a matter of fact I would be willing to bet

that

just

breaks

God’s

heart.

So what about this heart?

I just want to know God’s will for my life.

When people ask that, what are they really saying?

Sometimes I think we expect to sit across from God at a table as he hovers over his crystal ball waiting for him to reveal to us what the future holds so that we can know what kinds of decisions we need to make.

The problem with this is when seeking to know the future… we’re longing to know what we can’t know.

Clutching to our limited understanding is exactly where God wants us to be so that our strength is in him and not in ourselves.

But we still want to know don’t we?

Maybe its because we are easily preoccupied with what we’re doing instead of who we’re becoming.

The Apostle Paul wrote about this very thing in what’s considered his most important theological legacy. The longest letter he ever wrote which was addressed to the Romans.  

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God what is good and acceptable and perfect.”  Romans 12.2

On May 5, 1813 the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was born. During his relatively short life (he lived to be only 42) he would have one of the most extraordinary careers in the history of Western philosophy.

With his grim titles such as Fear and Trembling, The Sickness Unto Death, At A Graveside, and The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard is something of a dark figure in what is called the “Golden Age” of Danish literature. His last name even means, quite literally, church yard (in other words, cemetery). If Kierkegaard was preoccupied with death, dread, and despair, it was for a good reason: he spent his youth believing he would not live far into adulthood. His father, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, convinced young Søren that the Kierkegaard family was doomed because he–Kierkegaard’s father–had cursed God when he was a child. After five of his siblings died early deaths, Søren became convinced that he was next, until, finally, in 1838 Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard died leaving only Søren and his brother Peter alive.

These events may have led Kierkegaard to become something of a “man of sorrows,” but his interest in the dark side of human existence did not make him morbid. Instead, it gave him unparalleled motivation and intensity. He worked tirelessly, writing some of his longest works in a matter of months. He wrote standing up, walking back and forth between two desks, composing several different manuscripts simultaneously in the voices of many characters or pseudonyms while drinking as many as 50 cups of coffee a day, according to some sources.

Energy and inventiveness notwithstanding, Kierkegaard’s concerns are concerns we all share. His circumstances led him to face squarely and unflinchingly those things that we all worry about, even if we often try to forget about them. Kierkegaard simply decided that the only way to truth, hope, and love was through suffering. Here, I believe, he was just being realistic. Whenever we begin to take hope seriously we also realize that we are going against the grain of much of our experience, which normally gives us, like Kierkegaard, plenty of reasons for despair.

The Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio

Today, as Kierkegaard turns 199, I can’t help but think of how much we still have to learn from him. Many of us live in societies where comfort and happiness are often treated as duties, especially by Christians. Kierkegaard’s approach to faith has nothing to do with having “your best life now,” or hearing serene tales of heaven, angels, and the “sweet by and by.” For him, the archetypal image of faith is Abraham about to sacrifice his son, Isaac. There is no one that Abraham can talk to and explain what he has to do. Neither can he appeal to ethics or logic to explain why he has to do it. Abraham’s faith was anything but comfortable. It was deeply unsettling, and even scary. This is why Kierkegaard often said that having faith was like treading water with 50,000 fathoms beneath him.

If Kierkegaard’s view of faith is radically unfamiliar to many of us, it is because we are so accustomed to thinking of faith as something founded on certainty. Many Americans expect their faith to ensure their comfort and even their prosperity. It gives them a social group to identify with, it gives them a clear set of rules about morality, and it lets them always know who is right and wrong. But, for Kierkegaard, none of these things are faith. They are the temptations that get in the way of faith. Kierkegaard writes that, “Faith is the highest passion in a person.” It is something that we must stive for, but will never arrive at. This, for Kierkegaard, is where we find hope: in the fact that we aren’t finished yet; the final word about each of us has yet to be said. That is why, even at the end of his life, Kierkegaard always maintained that he was not a Christian–rather, he was becoming one.

So as you go about the 5th of May, may you raise a cup of coffee in remembrance of Søren Kierkegaard, and remember that “truth in the sense in which Christ is the truth is not a sum of statements, not a definition, etc., but a life,” and may you strive for something worthwhile.

“All our words from loose using have lost their edge.” – Ernest Hemingway

Spoiler Alert: If you have not read The Great Gatsby and would like to,  I would strongly advise not reading any further.

The Great Gatsby is considered to be the Great American Novel. Written during the “roaring” 1920’s, the story centers around Jay Gatsby, an enigmatic millionaire who lives luxuriously on West Egg, Long Island across the water from his now married, long-lost love, Daisy Buchannan. The story’s narrative is eloquently and perceptively told by the “non-judgmental” businessman and “friend” of Jay Gatsby, Nick Carraway. While it is no surprise to readers that the story magnifies the mood of the Jazz age and the obsessive delusions of wealth and romance, many will be surprised to know the classic tale has a secret ending:

CHAPTER 10 – Gatsby’s Will

Dear Old Sport,

If you’re reading this, I am surely dining in deaths mansion; my passing a testament to the expiration of one’s riches and fixations. My secrecy with you and others has not been in vain. I have concealed more than that of a controversial past and a criminal occupation – I have been hiding a supernatural power. You see Old Sport, that green lantern at the end of Daisy’s dock, the one you saw me fixed upon at the close of each summers day, it was the reason I was great. I am part of an intergalactic police force known as the Green Lanterns. I was given a ring that wields great power over our world. The ring is charged by the green lantern and is controlled by my own will power and imagination. I have chosen to use the ring not only to serve the Guardians (the immortal leaders of the Green Lanterns) and protect the universe, but to wield and control the heart of Daisy. As you know, my attempt at ensuring her love has failed. For what its worth, after Daisy and I hit Myrtle Wilson with Tom’s car it dawned on me that Daisy is a reckless hussy and that I had just killed (not protected) a human being. Needless to say, romantic infatuation (especially with fickle gold-diggers) breeds irresponsible Green Lanterns. Listen Old Sport, the parties, the cars, the fine clothing, the servants, the sex appeal, all of it, it was all created by the ring. With my passing, the ring is now yours. You are an utterly honest man and born without fear. My friend, Meyer Wolfsheim, is also a Green Lantern (that is how he manipulated the 1919 World Series), he will be expecting you in New York. Wolfsheim will teach you the vast powers of the ring and introduce you to the Guardians of Og. Be prepared to fly through space.

Yours truly,

Jay Gatsby

Author’s Note:  If you have not already, please take a moment to bring yourself up to speed in this series:

“Are You There Vodka?  It’s Me, Jesus (Part 1) – The Introduction”

“Are You There Vodka?  It’s Me, Jesus (Part 2) – The Beer-Goggled Bible”

“Are You There Vodka?  It’s Me, Jesus (Part 3) – Temperate Temperance” 

“Are You There Vodka?  It’s Me, Jesus (Part 4) – Brewmaster Theologian”

The Finale

In Romans chapter 14 Paul brings to the table, what I believe to be, one of the most important sets of instructions to the church pertaining to our conduct with one another. But like Solomon was proposing to do with the baby in 1 Kings, chapter 3, this chapter is often split in two, each faction in traditionally “liberal” and “conservative” Christian camps taking a side. Hoisting their half of the baby into the air like a battle standard, they champion their cause while the other camp simply becomes enraged at the blood dripping from the baby’s dead body.

Gruesome? I would certainly say so. But there is not a more accurate portrayal of what we run the risk of doing when we do not see Paul’s instructions to the Romans in chapter 14 for what it actually is – we split something that is meant to be a whole into two bloodied and incomplete halves.

The first portion of Romans 14 is used by what is generally thought of as the more “liberal camp” (though certainly the historically older camp) on the issue with alcohol. We see Paul making statements like, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?” (v4) and, “let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him” (v3b).  In a display of apparent individualism, Paul exclaims that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (v12).

The second portion of the chapter is the trumpet call of the abstentitionist. Having been backed into a corner biblicaly regarding the abstinence of alcohol, the abstentitionist cites verse 13 where Paul says, “but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”  Verse 15 speaks of one’s brother being grieved by what we eat, and if he is then we are no longer walking in love. Paul tells the Romans to not let what they regarded as good to be spoken of as evil.

And for the abstentitionist, the apex of this Scripture is verse 21 where Paul says, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”

And there we have it. Paul plays to both sides. He pacified the wine drinker and satisfied those who abstain. It as though Paul wrote this chapter for those who would come after the late 19th century temperance movement. But he didn’t. He didn’t play both sides, for if he had it would have done nothing to bring peace to a seemingly hostile situation. And he most certainly didn’t write this letter to a Welch’s Grape Juice generation.

The marriage of these two sections of chapter 14 is what gives the clearest understanding of the passage as well as that which fosters the most significant quantity of unity within the Roman church, as well as our churches today.

Help A Brother Out!

First, we must understand that the “brother” in question is referred to as one who is “weak in faith” (verses one and two). Paul isn’t making an insulting comment that those who choose to abstain are weak-minded, but he is referencing the fact that many new converts at this time were from a Nazarite lifestyle, which did not drink wine. (Hence, why Paul specifically addressed wine). The term “weak in faith” in the Greek does not lend to the absence of faith but rather a lack of maturity in faith  – or new converts. Paul is addressing a personnel issue where many Christians were exercising their “liberty” in Christ and flaunting it in front of those who were still infants in the faith.

When Paul talks about not doing anything that would cause a brother to stumble (verses 13, 20-21), he is speaking of committing an offense so great that it would run the risk of literally causing a new convert to abandon the faith. Another translation of the word stumble means to act in such a way that would cause someone to error or sin. To stumble isn’t equal to simply being offended. To stumble, in this context, is to run the risk of apostasy.

With Nazarites coming to Christ and finding difficulty reconciling the issue of wine, and other Jews coming to Christ and finding difficulty with some of the foods that Gentile Christians were eating, Paul’s instruction was to avoid “rubbing Christian liberty” in the face of someone who was finding such great issue with the wine or the food that they were considering abandoning the faith altogether.

The beauty of this passage is not the fact that Paul demonstrates the existence of liberty in the life of the believer but the synergy he attempted to create among believers in the family of God. With the existence of this issue, Paul’s desire was for the Roman Christians to be of the same “togetherness,” as in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. Here each person existed, though individually, as apart of the collective whole – a like-mindedness that was so strong that even as they were each an individual, they were still apart of the collective whole. It’s a type of community bond that we find difficult to grasp through the scope of western individualism.  It’s the notion that the whole was greater than the parts which summed it up.

Paul was making a statement that we should not only be willing, but also jump at the opportunity to demonstrate love for a brother or sister at the expense of our individualism. It doesn’t mean that Paul was telling the Roman Christians to stop drinking wine or eating meat altogether but to eagerly abstain when around someone who was so infantile in his faith that the wine or the meat would cause him to remove himself from the family of God.

Weak Brother Protocol

It seems both immature and unwise to set a precedence, however, for abstaining from alcohol for the sake of the “hypothetical weaker brother.” It is preposterous to restrain one’s liberty in Christ based on the possibility of a sneaky, weaker brother lurking in the shadows ready to take offense and turn away from Christ. It would be like refusing to enjoy a steak because there may be a vegetarian around who could potentially question your love for God’s creation. In western culture, it seems significantly more likely that the abstentitionist or prohibitionist Christian would be offended (which generally would not fall under the application of Romans 14) rather than a genuinely weaker brother. However, if a brother or sister who is weaker in the faith were to begin to stumble and may turn away from God because of a stupid food or beverage, then by all means, we should abstain while we disciple that weaker brother or sister into spiritual maturity.

Secondly, if one is a brother who is “weak in the faith,” every effort should be made to pastor the weaker brother to a point of understanding and accepting of Christian liberty. No Christ follower should be content being weak in his faith but, as 1 Peter 2 states, we should “crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” If we don’t, we face the fate of the Corinthian church (1 Cor 3.2). There is an irreconcilable tension for a mature believer to be weak in any area of his or her faith.  That does not mean that in order to be a mature Christian one must drink alcohol or eat meat. That’s absurd. What it does mean is that a mature Christian should make every effort to allow his brothers or sisters to be at liberty with their walk with Christ according to the Scriptures. It means that Romans 14 does not give a mature believer liberty to cast legalistic restrictions on a brother or sister. It means that mature believers should respect other mature believers without calling into question their spiritual maturity (be they an abstentitionist or moderationist).

Thirdly, it is incumbent upon us to clearly understand the situational propriety Paul speaks of here (similar to 1 Cor 10.25-30).  We tend to over complicate this concept, but it really is just as simple as respecting your brother or sister in Christ. This is often best demonstrated in a modern context when a Christian abstains from alcohol when with someone who has suffered from alcohol abuse syndrome. A person should refrain from touting their “Christian liberty” when it would be extraordinarily offensive to some. Paul’s message in Romans 14 is one of the church fostering respect and unity within its ranks. I think this can also be demonstrated by refraining from drinking alcohol around even a mature Christian who would be uncomfortable with a beer or glass of wine while sitting at the table. Though, one has the liberty to partake, unity is best fostered by temporarily abstaining.

Romans 14 and the concept of the weaker brother have so much more to do with fostering respect and unity within the family of God than the guy with the beer or the guy that can’t believe the guy that has the beer. Wisdom comes directly from God and is integrated within the very existence of God. If God looks favorably upon something when done correctly and in balance, which I believe He does look favorably upon the moderate use of alcohol (1 Tim 4:4), then wisdom directly accompanies it. But wisdom would also dictate that we use the freedom which Christ gives us in such a manner that fosters unity and respect among the family of God.

Concluding Remarks

This will be the final installment of the Are You There, Vodka?  It’s Me, Jesus series. Thank you to each of you who have joined me in this series. Though there has been some confusion regarding my intentions with writing a series of articles about alcohol, let it be clear that this series has less to do with alcohol itself and a great deal more to do with how individual Christians handle our sincerely held beliefs in light of the beliefs of another. Too often when we disagree with someone else we jump to questioning their “spirituality” and “maturity” rather than openly discoursing on the subject. In John 14, Jesus said He was (among other things) the Truth. As we passionately pursue Jesus, we should also passionately pursue Truth in all things. If we are people of Christ, then we must also be people of Truth. But as John the Beloved said in 1 John 4, God is also Love. So if we are people of Christ, then we must also be people of Love. This means we are under obligation, if we claim to love God, to pursue truth and to convey that truth in love. Just as we must choose to respect the beliefs and practices of another believer, though we may choose different decisions for our own life, we should also choose to constantly question our own beliefs and practices – examining them from time to time at the feet of Scripture. I’ve learned a lot through this series, and I hope you have too. Cheers!

“I love rap music, I always have and I always will. There ain’t no other kind, of music in the world, that makes me feel quite as chill.”- DC Talk

It’s hard to look at a map of America and see 70° and 80° degree weather everywhere. South Korea is still unthawing from a harsh winter, and I’m wondering if spring will ever fully arrive. There are moments when I envision myself taking out my old Saturn, and putting a new CD through the “car test” (playing a new album in my car to legitimize its value). It’s a beautiful image in my mind: mid-70s, windows down, cool breeze, bumpin’ to my favorite music: rap. Yes, rap.

Here’s how the conversation typically goes:

Person A: What’s your favorite music?

Me: I actually really like rap.

Person A: Really, I would’ve pegged you as a Jeremy Camp kinda guy.

Me: (If I had a dime . . .)

I love rap. I get chills every time I watch the end of 8 Mile. The rap battle between Eminem and Papa Doc is incredible (and explicit). Tupac’s hologram was disturbing, but I couldn’t look away. When I listen to my favorite artists, I feel like I can do anything. The beats are an injection of adrenaline that shock my system. For those of you who don’t know me, just picture Michael Bolton rapping from Office Space.

How My Fascination Began

My love for rap started back in middle school.  I grew up in a conservative, evangelical household where I would sneak around to listen to Jammin’ 92.3’s  9 at 9pm. We were a “Christian music” only family. Of course I don’t blame my parents for trying to censor some of the world. DC Talk did have a better message than Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, but how could I resist those beats?

As a nerdy white kid from the suburbs, my ears longed for “Gangster’s Paradise” and Puff Daddy (a.k.a Sean Combs, P-Diddy, and Diddy). I would memorize my favorite rhymes and allow the seeds of hip-hop to be planted. But as the story goes for many evangelical teenagers, youth convention came and went; I repented of my idolatry and turned off the radio (a case of moralistic deism at its finest). From there, I did what any good Christian kid would do and bought my first Christian hip-hop cassette: “Righteous Funk” by D.O.C (Disciples of Christ). The problem was being solved two-fold: 1) DC Talk stopped rapping, and 2) I could listen to rap and not feel guilty.

Theological Hip-Hop for a Hypnotized Generation

By its very nature, hip-hop has created a unique sub-culture that has a large impact on our society. It has started new fashion trends, formed a language, intertwined with sporting events and is every other song on pop radio. Some of the biggest names in the music industry are rappers: Jay-Z, Eminem, Lil’ Wayne, Nicki Minaj, Drake – to name a few. There is no doubt that the aforementioned names have given hip-hop culture a bad name in the eyes of the Church. Today’s biggest rap is filled with enough hedonism to make even Chuck Norris blush. I would be lying if I told you that I never get hypnotized by a catchy hook, and find myself singing about dehumanizing woman, abuse of alcohol and the love of wealth. Sanctification is a difficult process and the line between enjoying art without crossing the line into sin can be blurry. However, there is hope for the Christian who loves the rap genre but wants to leave the depraved content behind. The answer? Theological hip-hop.

I will be the first to admit that the early years of Christian rap were less than stellar. John Reuben’s first album was way ahead of its time (yes, John Reuben) – but that’s an entirely different discussion. Thankfully, the skills have increased immensely. Currently there is a movement of brilliant, young, theologically trained artists whose rhyme-schemes rival the best secular artists of our day. In our biblically illiterate generation, it’s comforting to hear an immense weight of theological depth, mixed with masterful lyricism. Shai Linne, a “veteran” in the theological hip-hop game said in a recent interview that, “hip-hop lends itself to (biblical) exposition.” (Read the full interview here.) His music is no exception. Other Christian artists like Shai Linne are slowly breaking into the mainstream and using rap as a medium for announcing the Kingdom of God. (See Lecrae’s performance on the BET Hip-Hop awards. He may be the first-ever Christian artist invited to rap at this event. An incredible platform to share the Gospel.)

My iPod is full of artists like Shai Linne and Lecrae, Timothy Brindle, S.O., Trip Lee, Andy Mineo, Stephen the Levite, Swoope, and many more. Now, I may not be able to convince you to listen to rap by this one article, but I will challenge you to visit the websites below and test the waters. Who knows? You may find yourself in the car, windows rolled down, nodding your head, worshiping the God of the universe.

www.reachrecords.com

www.lampmode.com

www.rapzilla.com

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Lastly he took cannabis, lit it and passed it to his left, saying, “Puff, puff and pass, all of you. “

So… The account above isn’t entirely accurate, but have you ever wondered if Jesus smoked marijuana (botanically known as cannabis)? Do you think he toked it up with the disciples after a hard day’s work of healing the lame and casting out demons? Ministry is stressful stuff, especially when you’re surrounded by crowds all day. Do you think Jesus liked to unwind with a little ganja?

I’ve never smoked marijuana, nor do I condone this illegal activity. But I’ve noticed that anytime I’ve posed questions about Jesus smoking weed, the typical response is rousing laughter followed by a boisterous, “NO!” But, why the knee-jerk reaction?

It seems obvious, right? Jesus is the self-proclaimed Son of God and marijuana has long been taught to be unprofitable for consumption and sinful. “Jesus Christ, recreational pot smoker” is an oxymoron. Or is it?

There is a host of things not recorded in Scripture one can presume Jesus did. Key word: presume. A presumption is a belief based on reasonable grounds. One can presume Jesus learned to swim, enjoyed dessert and built a great coffee table. Do any of those items bring about rousing laughter and a boisterous, “NO!”? Of course they don’t. Those things all seem rather logical and believable. Biblically we cannot prove any of them. Likewise we biblically lack reasonable grounds to conclude Jesus consumed cannabis, but we also lack confirmation that he didn’t.

So why the quick conclusion that Jesus wasn’t friendly with ol’ Mary Jane? Quite simply: our moral view of marijuana. So here’s the next question:

Is Smoking Cannabis Morally Wrong?

There are many moral codes to choose from – in popular culture people are increasingly creating their own. The morality we’ll focus on in this discussion is that of the Christian Bible. Though you may scoff, I find this clarification necessary.

What is the primary Christian teaching used to show the sinfulness of smoking marijuana? Todd Johnson, associate professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, says the most relevant biblical passage is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in the New Testament, in which the apostle Paul writes about wrong-doers and ills affecting the early church:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul goes on to describe food and the body, and concludes:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 

“Paul is addressing the issue of morality. One of the concerns he has is drunkenness. He concludes your body is in fact a temple of the Holy Spirit. What substances do you put in your body? I think Paul implies there is a connection there.”

Johnson concludes, “I think the issue is, are you doing something in excess that could damage your body, that is not reflective of the holiness that God invites you to love?”

Father Thomas Reese, S.J., senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, says because the Bible doesn’t refer directly to marijuana, theologians can only draw moral analogies based on biblical references to the drug of choice at the time–alcohol.

“Just as abuse of alcohol is sinful because of its weakening of character and our ability to do good, so too we look at drugs and can come to moral conclusion that if drug use is leading us to do things we wouldn’t do if we weren’t on drugs…then the use of these drugs is also bad.”

Please note that it is the abuse of alcohol that is sinful (i.e. being a drunkard). From this Scripture we can merely conclude that the abuse of marijuana is sinful, if it is indeed physically harmful to begin with. And that just so happens to be our next question.

Is Smoking Cannabis Physically Harmful?

Let’s be clear, smoking anything isn’t good for you. Smoke contains a lot of chemicals, tars and oils as well as small particles known as PM10′s, which are small enough to get into your lungs. As a general rule of thumb, the less smoke you breath in the better.

European studies of real populations of cannabis users have failed to show the lung damage everyone expected to see. In 2011, the NHS accepted  that there is “no conclusive evidence that cannabis causes cancer.” THC – one of the main chemicals in cannabis seems to have anti-cancer properties which may account for this unexpected finding. But – and it’s a big “but” – this only applies to smoking pure cannabis, not, as most people still do, mixing it with tobacco in joints. Tobacco certainly does cause cancer and other lung damage, as well as being highly addictive.

The safest way to smoke marijuana is to not smoke it all, or rather, inhale it as a vapor using a vaporiser. A vaporiser is a device that heats up cannabis to a temperature above the boiling point of active ingredients but below the combustion point of the plant material. The psychoactive ingredients are vaporized and almost all of the unwanted side-effects from burning cannabis are avoided. Research has shown that vapourisers can create a gas which is at least 95% pure cannabinoids.

Marijuana seems to yield considerable medical benefits for many Americans with ailments ranging from glaucoma to cancer, but these benefits have not been accepted well enough, on a national level. Medical use of marijuana remains a serious national controversy.

Many major Christian denominations and religious groups have issued statements supporting medicinal marijuana use. The Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Progressive National Baptist Convention and the Episcopal Church have all either issued resolutions or signed statements supporting the use of marijuana under the supervision of a doctor.

So if marijuana isn’t as physically damaging as public perception would have us believe, why is it illegal? And that is our final question.

Why Is Marijuana Illegal?

It is perceived as addictive. Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug on the basis that it has “a high potential for abuse.” What does this mean? It means the perception is that people get on marijuana, they get hooked and become “potheads,” and it begins to dominate their lives. This unquestionably happens in some cases. But it also happens in the case of alcohol – and, of course, alcohol is perfectly legal. Is this good enough reason for many not to consume cannibus or alcohol? For an in-depth study of alcohol consumption, view the fine work previously posted on TheoMag: “Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Jesus.”

It has been historically linked with narcotics. Early anti-drug laws were written to regulate narcotics – opium and its derivatives, such as heroin and morphine. Marijuana, though not a narcotic, was described as such – along with cocaine. The association stuck, and there is now a vast gulf in the American consciousness between “normal” recreational drugs, such as alcohol, caffeine and nicotine and “abnormal” recreational drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. Marijuana is generally associated with the latter category, which is why it can be convincingly portrayed as a “gateway drug.”

Inertia is a powerful force in public policy. If something has been banned for only a short period of time, then the ban is seen as unstable. If something has been banned for a long time, however, then the ban – no matter how ill-conceived it might be – tends to go unenforced long before it is actually taken off the books. Take the ban on sodomy, for example. It hasn’t really been enforced in any serious way since the 18th century, but most states technically banned same-sex sexual intercourse until the Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). People tend to be comfortable with the status quo – and the status quo, for nearly a century, has been a literal or de facto federal ban on marijuana.

Advocates for marijuana legalization rarely present an appealing case. What some advocates of marijuana legalization typically say is that the drug cures diseases while it promotes creativity, open-mindedness, moral progression and a closer relationship with God and/or the cosmos. That sounds incredibly foolish, particularly when the public image of a marijuana user is, again, that of a loser who risks arrest and imprisonment so that he or she can artificially invoke an endorphin release.

A much better argument for marijuana legalization would be more like this: “It makes some people happy, and it doesn’t seem to be any more dangerous than alcohol. Do we really want to go around putting people in prison and destroying their lives over this?”

So what would Jesus smoke? We’ll never know for sure. Regardless, the answers to the questions above help us reconsider our understanding and provide guidance as we ponder the drug war and the possibility of marijuana legalization.

I realize I have only lit the tip of this fully-rolled topic. I look forward to munching on your thoughts!

References

The church is in serious trouble. It’s beyond broken. It’s a sad shamble of its former glory. It has lost its way. And I know the way home.

It seems like every time I pick up a Christian book or read a blog, somebody has another dark prophecy over the sickly state of the church. The premise is always the same: the church is askew. Yet, the proposed solutions for how to fix it are wildly different. Depending on which particular branch of evangelicalism you belong, your final answer may vary, yet we all agree something has gone terribly wrong.

Where did all this doom and gloom come from?

Perhaps it’s the fault of overzealous publishers who push their authors to overstate their case in order to sell books. Perhaps it’s the fault of consumers who support and fund whoever happens to shout their opinions the loudest. Perhaps we just enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid of hyperbole. Maybe we just like the tickle of controversy?

Here I have laid out several of the major responses to the great crisis facing Christianity as we know it. These generalizations may not be infallible, but they fit my experience rather snugly. Church is broken, and here’s how we can fix it.

The Charismatics: This Is Not The Book of Acts

During my freshman year of college, I became a Pentecostal. It surprised me too. Although I found tremendous faith within this tradition, I also found some, well, perplexing advice taught at large conferences and in popular books. “The Church is impotent,” I heard the conference speakers claim. We have traded the Holy Spirit for man-made institutions and a neutered spirituality.

Reasons for this Spirit-deficit varied. One speaker suggested that if we all just spent an hour a day praying in tongues, church would be dramatically transformed. Others mentioned the tragic decline of the traditional Sunday Night services where the Spirit had once reigned supreme.

For most charismatics however, these were mere band aids stretched over gaping spiritual wounds. This group claimed we had a more conspicuous symptom: where did all the miracles go? Jesus had promised that his followers would do greater things, but here we were praying that God would help us stay cheery as we died a slow death from terrible diseases. The only things that could free us from spiritual impotency were signs and wonders. What were missing were the Jesus-style miracles: dramatic physical healings, prophetic words, demonic exorcism and the literal resurrection of dead people.

If these miraculous puzzle pieces could just fall into place, the church would be healed! Faith would be ushered back through the church doors. Revival would spread like wildfire across the land. The key was the supernatural.

The Missional: We’ve Become Culturally Irrelevant

Another movement to which I found myself attracted in college was the missional church. The body of Christ, they said, had become hopelessly ingrown. Somehow Christianity had created its own self-absorbed subculture. They had thrown out their secular music and produced their own Christianized celebrities, pop stars and socialites. Church people had become another market segment, a bland demographic catered to by Christian bookstores, radio stations and television channels. They owned expensive personalized leather Bibles.

The Bride had effectively divorced herself from culture, leaving evangelism to suffer greatly as a result. We were no longer reaching people outside of our tidy suburban fiefdoms.

Christians had abandoned the cities, they argued. Churches were too white, too culturally irrelevant, too niche, and too overproduced. Instead of supporting the arts, we were making unflattering Christmas musicals. Instead of helping the poor, we had gotten busy helping ourselves to expensive church entertainment centers. Satisfied with making converts, we had forgotten Christ’s command to make disciples.

I was told we had abandoned the original mission. And the first step for getting back on track was to rediscover the creation mandate and carry it to its logical conclusion. We needed the homeless and marginalized back under our roof. We needed the tattooed artists, the folksinger-baristas and pierced, former atheists sitting next to us on Sundays. If we only took up the Great Commission with a fresh rigor, the Church would be reborn.

The Reformed: Reclaiming the One True Gospel

I didn’t know Calvinists existed until my junior year of high school. My English teacher was constantly bemoaning the vile doctrines of predestination and total depravity. But Christians didn’t believe those things, I explained to her. I couldn’t understand who exactly she was talking about. Jonathan Edwards? But little did I know, the theological heirs of the Protestant Reformation were very much alive and kicking.

Reformed Christians have their own analysis concerning the state of the modern church. Surveying the wonky landscape of evangelicalism with its shallow megachurch philosophies and charismatic fuzziness, clearly we have missed the whole point: the pure and simple gospel.

Nobody preaches on the cross anymore, they explained. Where was that indispensable doctrine of the atonement? Conveniently churches had left out the dirty bits about sin in order to appease the delicate ears of the masses. Rather than challenging the world with the one true gospel, we had diluted it with concessions to make it a little more palatable. The deep truths of the faith had suffered a bizarre form of Joel Osteenization.

The issue at stake was nothing less than salvation through faith alone. Our man-centered theology had obscured a sovereign God and left us with a pale shadow of the gospel. We needed to get back to the real thing. The gospel was the solution to every problem, if only we would preach it and believe it.

The Academics: We Don’t Love God With Our Minds

In college I made the error of minoring in religious studies at a secular university. It didn’t threaten my faith so much as make me bored to read anything having to do with biblical scholarship. But after graduation, I quickly discovered the internet granted me access to the top Christian thinkers and scholars in the world. Studying could be delightful.

But according to these leading Christian academics and theologians, this immense body of theological knowledge and insight has largely failed to trickle down to the average Christian. Or so they argue in the prefaces to their books. For whatever reason, Christians just don’t take theological learning seriously.

When it came to the heavy intellectual lifting, we left that for the pagans. Few Christians now study the Greek and Hebrew necessary for a precise understanding of scripture. And how many were willing to tackle apologetics with real devotion? How many took seriously the delicate hermeneutics needed to handle the Word of God correctly? No wonder the world was not impressed. Do Christians even bother reading these days?

Gutenberg’s machine may have put the Bible in our hands, but it couldn’t teach us how to interpret it. Some denominations addressed this problem by requiring their ministers earn a seminary degree. My own denomination required Bible classes, or at least correspondence courses, to provide additional theological training. But ultimately the problem remained. In Mark Noll’s words, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”

The theological bottom has fallen out of the Church. We don’t know what we believe, nor have we been willing to learn.

The Church Growth Movement: Pragmatism Saves The Day

During high school, my pastor attended preaching conferences at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. At the time I couldn’t put my finger on what had changed, but eventually I figured out what had happened: somehow without my knowledge, my church had become seeker-friendly. Although slightly jarring at first, this new mindset soon became our modus operandi.

The scriptures weren’t practical. They weren’t intersecting with the lives of the congregation. We had no way to apply the lofty but muddled sermons. We had no real advice to offer the hurting broken people strewn across our neighborhoods, waiting for someone to help them overcome their addictions and personal crises. We had let them perish for lack of vision.

As an organization, the church could only be as strong as the strength of its leadership. Where were leaders who could see the big picture written in the sky and implement the needed structures that would facilitate life-change in a hurting world? Sermons could not just be dropped off like airport luggage in stuffy old translations without any sort of real application to people’s lives. The Church needed desperately to become practical before it could ever become radical again.

Greeter stations, newcomer desserts, info cards in the back of the chairs, small groups that discussed the previous week’s sermons, upbeat video announcements: they were simple but they sure worked.

So Who’s Really To Blame?

There’s so many different problems to choose from. If only we could figure out which ones were the real ones, then we could put ourselves to work fixing them. Then we could right all the wrongs and usher in the kingdom.

But as time has gone on, these urgent premonitions sound less and less like an early warning system and more like boys crying wolf. Are we really on the precipice?

Perhaps it’s imprudent to question the counsel of those wiser than me, but I’m tired of the rhetoric. I’m tired of being told I belong to a decrepit and sickly spiritual organization, or that I have given my life to a bloated and dying church.

Everyone wants to be the prophetic voice of the Church, the wake-up call to a sleeping giant. They love uncovering the hidden tragedy and lucidly explaining the way out. They love calling God’s bride a whore.

What if the Church, despite her flaws, isn’t headed toward her doom? What if all the trendy solutions to our extraordinary woes have been blown slightly out of proportion? What if God himself is at work in our messy congregations, sovereignly drawing men and women everywhere to himself?

What if the Holy Spirit is not lost, the central mission not abandoned, the unadorned gospel not forgotten, the intellect not forsaken, practical methods not ignored? (We would have nothing left to complain about, right?)

I can’t help but wonder if the Church isn’t a bit better off than the commentators would have us believe.

I can’t help but wonder if maybe we are reaching our culture with the historic gospel of the crucified Christ.

I can’t help but wonder if maybe some of the best stories in the Church today just haven’t been told yet.

King Obama VIII?

It is at the gym that I get the heaviest endowment of political knowledge – either from the elderly man tripping over his feet on the treadmill as his eyes are glued to FOX News or picking up a week’s old Time magazine.  Their issue following Valentine’s Day caught my attention simply for its pink-petal coloring and photograph of man’s best friend on the cover.  Cover article: The Surprising Science of Animal Friendships by Carl Zimmer was surprisingly intriguing and warrants searching Time’s database for the article after you finish this one.  While thumbing through, another article caught my eye: a one-page Commentary piece by Rich Lowry titled Obama vs. the Church. The editor of the National Review not only compared Obama’s advances in the health care reform mandating birth control for all and its clear violation of American religious freedoms against the entangled works of Henry VIII (yes, the one who murdered his wives and declared himself the Head of the Church of England), but he also transposed Obama’s likeness into the rotund, English-collared picture of calloused old King Henry.  I read not only of Obama’s push but the Catholic Church’s push back and Lowry’s assumption that the Church will prevail in their endeavors against such mandates.  His byline, “The winner is clear: religious freedom matters more than access to birth control.”  Now, Richie Rich Lowry made several good points in his article and his closing lines are important to note.  He referenced Alexis de Tocqueville’s prophecy of the “tutelary power” in the administrative state that would seek society’s happiness, “but it wishes to be the only agent and sole arbiter of that happiness.”

Rich Lowry wrote in favor of the church and closed with a valid argument that Obama needs to retreat or lose in the courts.  But what I found hard to swallow, was his comment that, “the Administration’s handiwork has been condemned from Catholic pulpits across the nation, and liberals have joined conservatives in lacerating it.  With Catholics always a key swing vote, especially in Midwestern battlegrounds, the mandate is a political millstone.  Even Catholic laypeople who ignore the church’s teachings on birth control don’t enjoy seeing their church treated with such high-handedness.”

There are a few things to deduce from his statement (which I believe can be extended beyond the Catholic confines into a more general “Christian Church” sense); (1) The Church is making a habit of commending or condemning political aspirations, advancements, and setbacks from the pulpit, so much so that those outside the Church notice; (2) Both liberals and conservatives are weighing in on this argument as Catholic/Christian votes matter to their general cause, which would almost appear that the Church is a handful of voters swayed merely by timely agreement; (3) This man, and others see that many Church-goers hold to their political rights (we can’t be high-handed by the President!) but don’t hold to the tenets of the church, i.e. the basic deductions of their faith in Christ.

Now, I asked to borrow this issue of Time from the Cody Rec Center. The woman at the counter noted to me (and logically assumed) that I took the article for the featured pin-up black and white photographs of Oscar-worthies in the latter half of the issue; included in this cultural piece are lovely candids of dreamboats Brad Pitt and my favorite, George Clooney.  But I took it to read and reread this piece, to gaze upon Obama in his new costume; Henry VIII attire looks stately upon him.  I took the article because I have my concerns with the Church and their interaction with the political sphere.

Teach Me Your Ways Mr. Cimburek 

In my formative years, my political mindset was shaped by Mr. Mark Cimburek and later a quite different character helped to round out the education – Jesus.  Mr. Mark Cimburek taught my 7^th grade Civics class in shorts everyday. He sported tall socks and worn out Asic tennis shoes.  His oversized bottle-cap glasses harken one back to the 80’s and he never walked, but rolled about his classroom in an oversized leather executive’s chair.  Political knowledge spilled from his lips; his questions caused a stir within me; why did I think the way I did about our government? Why did I have an idea that American was an end all nation?  His constant influx of political cartoons, editorials, and articles from both stateside and world publications nearly knocked over my 7^th grade silhouette. Mr. Cimburek would look at you from behind his glasses which served like a magnifying glass to his eyes and explain simple and complex cause and effects around the world. I’m still not sure how he managed to teach what he did having to submit his classroom agenda to the scrutinizing curriculum of that school district, which was held under the very thumb of ‘No Child Left Behind.’  But his bottom line was simple: people have an essential part to play in the government around them.  When Christ entered the picture and I was introduced to Yoder’s depiction of Jesus’ political agenda, I was once more captured by that (now-edited) bottom line: people have a God-given part to play in the government around them.

So being outspoken people of the Christian faith, we preach political right and wrong from the pulpit. We encourage people to vote; we meet with political leaders in public displays to give our official stamp-of-approval on their actions, future endeavors, and persons.  We lobby in the private chambers of both Houses in hopes that the government will champion our pet-causes; at this point they center on abortion, gay-marriage, and euthanasia. Who knows what ‘Christ’s next cause’ will be! We call Christ a victor when the most Western religious character is elected in this deity-blessed nation and question the integrity of our country when a man with an Islamic surname is elected.  But I have to ask: is this the best we can do? Is this even what Christian involvement in politics should look like?  Do we pay homage to our ecclesiastical heritage that held to an “Otherness of the Church”?? Or were those ancestors simple fools who missed out on stirring the pot alongside all others who have something to gain from the government??

Preach Jesus Not Politics

I watched this intriguing documentary on Dietrich Bonhoeffer; one of his pupils, Otto Dodzes, was interviewed, his statement was quite interesting: “We were hearing everywhere that Hitler was our salvation but Bonhoeffer taught that salvation was found in Christ alone.  He never directly mentioned what was happening around us but it was the remedy that we needed.” I can draw some direct parallels between Otto’s circumstances and ours.  Now, I wouldn’t even venture to say that Hitler and Obama are even on the same playing field politically. However, it is not out of line to say that Obama campaigning as the Hope of the Nation suffers from a slight to moderate messiah complex too; it is presumed that he will save this nation from ruin.  What other president has ventured to sell themself as a hope? Their political agendas and programs as a hope, but never themselves.  Apparently, he is the whole package, but I digress.  We have elected a man who claimed to be our hope and many are finding that he is but a man (surprise!); and instead of lifting his future decisions up in prayer from the pulpits of America’s churches, we either commend or condemn him. And the ecclesiastical criticism and praise isn’t reserved for him only, but extends to our Congress members and the Judges interpreting the Constitution on our behalf daily. But stop and read out culture for a moment: a nation that elects a man who sells himself as the “hope” they are seeking (like Germans from 1920-1950), reveals a people that is hungry for hope, thirsty for salvation and are certain to be sold short by a mere man, however commanding he may present himself as.

You see, we didn’t lose the political war when Obama took office, we didn’t lose the social war when we stopped feeding the homeless, and we didn’t lose the Christian sway in Congress when they stopped praying prior to sessions. We gave it all away when we stopped preaching Christ from the pulpit.  When topical sermons propitiated by the latest political and social sway took hold – we lost.  When we made Sunday morning about whether the President follows through on Christian precedence or not we give up the power that really changes a country – the power of Christ himself, the man who lives to this day to implement the design God set forth at the founding of life.  If Bonhoeffer can make each conversation, each sermon about Christ amidst the greatest human-initiated massacre of mankind in recorded history and the direct persecution of the Church, I think we can preach Christ crucified and risen as the ultimate solution.  We too can answer that cry, offer that remedy as Bonhoeffer did.  Not with the supposed socio-political agenda that we think can be supported Scripturally, but with Christ himself. Preach Christ from the pulpits and you will see godly leaders rise up in all arenas – from the local to federal level.  You will see people become disciples of Christ and follow the biblical mandates which influence the way we interact with our neighbors on ground level, in the courtroom, in Senate private chambers, and behind the curtain at the ballot.  You will see Christ have far more influence in government when He has far more influence in individuals’ lives.

This isn’t to say that the Church doesn’t have a role in the social and political affairs that surround our everyday lives.  It is to teach that our approach is one of submission, of prayer, of continued appeal to God for the change we so desire in our government and ourselves and following His lead in change rather than advocating for varying laws and stipulations under the supposed “Christian” label or the lesser of two evils.  It is teaching our flocks to understand that ultimately God causes the rise and fall of nations; that the fall of America doesn’t mean the fall of the Christian cause.  It is the genuine effort to see that the Kingdom doesn’t come about from American, Syrian, Chinese or British advancements, but when Christ is followed and the virtues of our God are exemplified by His people, the greatest of these being love, then the Kingdom has come. It is the teaching that our joy, our security, our triumph is found not in whether the abortion, gay-marriage, and health care reform bills pass today or fail next year. Our joy, our security, our triumph is found in Christ in us, the hope of glory, the mystery of God.  It is a reminder that we have a role in government, in all of this: followers of Christ in every setting, living his character and thus revealing him – changing the world through Him.