The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Matthew 11.28-30 and Finding No Rest in Utopia

Tags

Jesus' yoke, Matthew 11.28-30, my yoke is easy, theodicy

I’m off to blog about chapter two of my book Right Texts, Wrong Meanings.  In the light of the natural disasters in Oklahoma and many manmade problems all over the world (e.g. Mali, Sudan, Egypt, China), now is the best time to blog about one of the most misused “chicken soup for the soul” verses in the entire NT.

When bad things happen for no apparent reason, people love to quote Matthew 11.28-30 as some kind of comfort.  I’ve seen it so many times on Facebook I’ve lost count.  The quote itself is supposed to magically bring comfort.

The presupposition is basically this.  If you come to Jesus, even in the midst of chaos (whether it is having too much overtime or a tornado taking your house), you’ll find rest because his “yoke is easy and … burden light.”  It is little wonder that many feel that Christianity is an escape rather than help because of this kind of opium.

To make matters worse, this illusion has been propped up (albeit very weakly) by extraordinary testimony of cheap triumphalism following the plot that goes something lie this.  “XXX happened to me.  I ought to feel angry, but because I know Jesus, he gave me rest and I feel instantly better after prayer.”  No doubt, for some, this might have been the experience, but this verse has nothing to do with a campfire handholding kumbaya-singing revival meeting.  In order to be relevant (at least not crazy and normal) to the world, our job as Christians is not to try to look hip like Mark Driscoll or speak in the common man’s language like Joel Osteen. No!  The key is to understand OUR OWN SCRIPTURE and the heavy violence our popular Christian culture has done to its meaning.  IF we do so, we’ll go a long way helping people understand true Christianity.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

If you don’t have my book, I’ll give you a hint.  Take at look at the pair of “at that time” in 11.25 and 12.1.  Isn’t that author trying to get his readers to relate the stories by using the repeated echo?  Think about the relationships between the stories.

Advertisements

NO Amount of Scriptural Quotation Is Adequate: A Reflection on Christian Responses on the Oklahoma Disaster

Tags

John Piper, Oklahoma tornado and faith

I always say that Christian culture is stranger than fiction.  You simply can’t make this stuff up.  The above caption sums it all up.  I saw a few other minister’s quotations of Scripture that, at best, have no place in a disaster like Oklahoma’s and, at worst, downright abusive.  Of course, all this is done with good intention so that  “the raw realism of Job’s losses will point us all to his God “compassionate and merciful. James 5:11”.  Yes, this is a direct quote off Piper’s Facebook page.  HOW do you pastorally link the gigantic loss that had hit these folks with God’s compassion and mercy?  How?  James 5.11 has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, to do with natural disasters.  One of my blogger friends call this the true abuse of the Lord’s name because when you use the Lord’s name, you do something to the recipient.

Many of my friends are saying that I’m too picky on exegesis.  Well, here’s where bad exegesis can lead pastorally.  It leads to re-victimization of people who have lost everything, including family members.  It leads to a holy huddle that looks more like a joke than a witness to the world.  How do you ask a parent who has lost a son or daughter in this disaster to link the disaster to God’s compassion?  Wait! Don’t answer that.  It was a rhetorical question.  IF you do, please say it to the faces of the people who lost loved ones and not debate it theologically here.  I’ve done both academic and pastoral works.  I wouldn’t dare to make some of the announcements these people are making.

My gut reaction is not merely anger. I also feel puzzled.  Whenever something bad happens, someone always hopes that Westboro Baptist would not  protest.  Yes, those extremists are annoying pests in the guise of Christian clothing.  However, to a lesser degree, I feel puzzled about evangelical Christian logic.  Yes, evangelical Christian logic can be a kind of special logic.  I listen with disbelief at times when people start moralizing about disasters and terrorist attacks (not only on Americans but worldwide).  It goes something like this.  These people must have done something to draw divine wrath.  Evangelical Christians are especially prone to make such broad announcements “for God” against the more liberal areas (e.g. Boston) where people hold to a different moral standard.  At this moment, I haven’t heard any evangelical Christian pronounced any curse against Oklahoma simply because Oklahoma is in the conservative Bible Belt.  I’m glad to see that.  What I’m saying is that we’re very selective in how and to whom we  curse in the name of God.  I did see one curse being uttered by an evangelical Christian overseas who was unfamiliar with the Bible Belt though.  This is the problem.  It is easy to moralize and curse when you are ignorant.  It is easy to select when your blinders are on.

This is the truth.  Life is complex. Suffering is difficult.  No amount of theologizing or moralizing can explain suffering.  Therefore, we may as well stop trying.  The best way to evangelize sometimes is to keep our mouths shut and keep our hands and feet moving.  I urge everyone to just pray for people in Oklahoma and many other places where chaos reigns.  No moralizing is welcome at the moment.

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Matthew 7.12 and the Golden Rule of Interpretation

Tags

judgmental attitude, Matthew 7.12, the Golden Rule

This marks the last blog for chapter 1 of my book.  “Thank goodness,” you say.

This blog is my conviction about the usage of the Golden Rule. This again, like Matthew 7.1, is one of the most quoted verses of the entire NT, without any exception.  If you take it literally as an ethical command, the world would be a better place, but life just doesn’t work like the rule.  Let me give some examples that may tickle you.

Let’s say I’m in a situation where my kid is getting bullied.  I teach him, “Do to others as you would have them to do to you.”  He acts kind towards the bully, creating even a bigger problem.  The bully bullies him even worse. What do I do?  Do I quote the verse to him?  Well, I actually teach him how to box, kick, grapple and deal with weapons (I’m only half kidding).

What about when I try to be nice to those people who wrong me at work, the same people who are after my promotion?  Guess what?  No matter how I treat them, they continue to be mean.  Yes, I’m speaking about the real world rather than the spiritual world where some of my spiritual giants friends dwell.

Many will say, “Well, God’s word said to do this.”  What if God’s word isn’t really saying that?  Would that rule apply to the Israelites?  I’m sure they would want the Canaanites not to fight back?  How about being nice to the Canaanites (at one point in Judges 1-2, they were nice to the Canaanites and paid dearly for their niceness)?  Obviously, the Israelites were not doing to others as they would have them reciprocate.  Has the Golden Rule lost its shine to you yet?  It’s lost its shine a long time ago in my Christian life.

This is where we need to ask a wider question, what does this Golden Rule to do with the surrounding ideas about prayer? OR are the surrounding ideas not really about prayer?  What about the relationship between the Golden Rule and the main issue? What is the main issue?  The fact is, there are many ways we can go with answering these questions, but the real solution does not lie in the literal application of the Golden Rule.  The obvious is never that obvious. That’s my “golden rule” of biblical interpretation.  If you want the real answer, (other than buying my book) you had better think about what the big idea is starting in Matthew 7.1 or you will never get the golden rule.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Matthew 7.7 and the False Promise of God

Tags

Matthew 7.7, the promise of God

I continue to blog on chapter 1 of my book because the passage is so rich with meaning.  Matthew 7.7 is quite popular as a teaching on prayer by Christ.  In fact, songs have been sung about it.  Theologies have been formed around it.

Here’s the deal, God wants you to have everything that makes you happy.  God wants to make you happy and rich.  Now, if you send money to me, I, the all-powerful intercessory prayer warrior, will intercede on your behalf so that God will open up the heaven’s treasure trove and pour down his blessings because we have a good God. Amen?  Well, if you said amen to that, please do send money. I’m half kidding.

The fact is, my above sermonic plot line is repeated in a less extreme form in seeing the verse as yet one more of God’s precious promise.  What if God does NOT keep his promise? I’m sure, if you’re honest with yourself, really really honest, you’ll say that God has failed his promise endlessly if these verses are the promise.  Some of you who are smarter would say, “But the verse which follows shows how God keeps his promise.”  Sure, it does!  The bigger question we need to ask is, why is the discussion about prayer and God’s “promise” lands in the major topic of not judging.

Well, some of you still smarter interpreters will say that Matthew 5-7 is just nothing but a collection of Jesus’ sayings clumped into one with no apparent logic.  What if there is logical connection, even if Matthew and not Jesus edited and put together the text? What if this is not a set of random sayings?  Hmmmm … I bet many will have no answer for that one.

The fact is, I think it’s a desperate grasp for straws when we say that large sections of the Bible have no logical order.  As one of my self-defense instructor used to say, “Don’t read your own limitations into the situation of others.”  Exactly!  What if we assume that the Bible is logically put together? What a thought, huh?  “You mean we can’t just quote random verses and call them promises?” you say.  Well, yeah!  Unless you’re ready to settle with a God who repeatedly breaks his “precious promise,” you’d better take the view of the Bible having its own contextual logic.  Otherwise, you have to take the alternate solution, “Maybe I just don’t have enough faith for this promise to happen.”  Hmmm … you have to make that call.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault.  The interpreter is!

To get to the meaning, remember always that this is part of a discussion about judging.  This is not God’s promise.