Counterculture

Choosing Barabbas

Standard

But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”— a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder.
—Luke 23:18-19 ESV

Give Us Barabbas by Charles HornThose in the crowd knew the reputation of the man called Barabbas—as well as the reputation of the innocent man who stood in contrast to him on Pilate’s dais. They knew that Barabbas had victimized others through robbery, murder, and general thuggery. The other man, however, had taught them, healed them, given them hope, and relentlessly pointed them to God.

Today, we look back on the trial of Jesus and ask the question, How could they choose Barabbas?

Good Friday is probably the closest thing we Christians have to a day of reckoning. We consider the cross and think about our own failings, meditating on the acts of selfishness that led us to pound the nails into the Lord of Life’s hands. Good Friday is good for the soul.

Sunday comes and we bask in the joy of an empty tomb, of death smashed, of the Enemy destroyed. The stone that lay across the heart of each of us has been rolled away. Life has overcome.

Then comes the day after, the Monday that follows—and we revert to choosing Barabbas.

We choose Barabbas when we ignore the cries of the poor, choosing instead the siren song of the plasma TV and home theater system. We choose Barabbas when we gossip about celebrities and envy their Hollywood lifestyles. We choose Barabbas when we let the words of God gather dust in favor of the latest chart-topping bestseller. We choose Barabbas with the hurtful and vulgar words we elect to speak to those around us. We choose Barabbas when we view others as an inconvenience. We choose Barabbas when we think, I am the master of my own kingdom.

You and I chose Barabbas two thousand years ago, but we don’t have to choose him today. This side of history, this side of the cross of Jesus Christ, there is a more excellent choice. No more do we have to choose Barabbas.

Come to the foot of the cross and die. Take up your cross daily and live. Choose Jesus.

{Full-size image: “Give Us Barabbas” by Charles Horne, 1909.}

Sojourners Magazine’s Deafening Silence

Standard

In light of one of the most critical issues of our day, in a decision that all Christians should be concerned with, this is what Jim Wallis and Sojourner’s Magazine—a magazine that bills itself as concerned with justice issues for those who have no voice— has to say about the starvation death of a brain-damaged woman in Florida:

Schiavo & Sojourners

Update 3/25/05:

Ironically, just today Sojourners put up a post on their main page discussing end of life issues (although it requires a free registration to their mailing list in order to read it.) Nothing in the article directly refers to Terri Schiavo, but does discuss the issue of “Persistent Vegetative State.” Sadly, the article does not seem to take any one position, entertaining all options.

Although the date on the post is 3/24/05, it was not there yesterday when I posted. And still, their search engine reveals no article hits on “Schiavo.” That nothing was published in the past about previous starvation/dehydration attempts against Terri still speaks volumes.

You’d think that Jim Wallis’s new post, “Human Life is a Gift from God,” would address the Schiavo case, but it’s actually an anti-capital punishment commentary. Wallis chooses to plead for leniency for criminals (with the rationale that some might actually not be), but chooses to make no commentary on the gift of life that is being cruelly taken from Terri Schiavo.

However, in what must be the most craven quote (and choice of quote to highlight) I’ve seen about the Schiavo case, the online version of Sojourners has this listed as their Quote of the Week:

The case is full of great ironies. A large part of Terri’s hospice costs are paid by Medicaid, a program that the administration and conservatives in Congress would sharply reduce. Some of her other expenses have been covered by the million-dollar proceeds of a malpractice suit – the kind of suit that President Bush has fought to scale back.
—NPR commentator Daniel Schorr

I don’t even know how to respond to Schorr or Sojourners in their decision to cast this as their “Quote of the Week.” It seems so bereft of morality, so ignorant of the humanity of Terri, as to defy comment.

Commune-ity Values (or Redefining “Church” Yet Again….)

Standard

Oy vey!

That’s all I can say after reading The House Church Blog’s post on what the Bible really says about house churches.

As someone who has even considered whether a house church was the “church of last resort” for a couple of square pegs like my wife and I, this semi-new definition of what constitutes a house church should have even Robert Fitts throwing a few of his namesake (minus a “t”—of course.)

A distressing—for all those house church proponents, at least—excerpt:

The implications of Gehring’s insights about the importance of oikos [Greek for “household”—Ed.] are huge! For one thing, it means that moving church from a special church building into a home does not go nearly far enough. The churches established by Jesus and his disciples were not mere weekly meetings. They were literally households—ongoing, 24/7, family-like communities.

Consider 1Cor. 16:19 – “Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house (oikos)”. If we read this from our 21st Century Western context, we would (unconsciously?) conclude that once a week a group of Christians met in this couple’s home for church. However, if we read this verse from the 1st Century context, we would conclude something quite different.

To say that we have a “house church” because we meet in someone’s home at 7 pm on Tuesday nights, falls significantly short of the New Testament concept of “house church”.

Yikes! Are we back to the redeemed hippie communes of the 1970’s Jesus People era? Well, from this assessment, it seems we are.

St. Chapelle Stained Glass by Dan EdelenThe perpetually moving target that is the method of some to capture the exact mode of meeting of the first century Church is bothersome. Methodology is great and I applaud those who are going for as pure a methodology as can be understood, but at some point we just need to get on with doing what the Lord commanded: making disciples. If every couple years we rip down the idea of what constitutes a “true” church meeting, then we are only forcing our churches through ever-finer strainers. Who or what comes out of that in one piece is debatable.

Perhaps we are asking too much of people. In the midst of a resurgence in house churches, this is an acid test that few can withstand, I suspect. “Now we have to live in the same house with these people!” is asking too much too early on in this nascent movement.

My wife and I have wondered if the best model is to get a group of six or seven committed Christian families to purchase about fifty acres of land near a smaller town and build a home for each family on that land, along with a larger building that can provide a centralized meeting place. One or two of the families can work the remaining land as a source of food and revenue for the community, not to mention a source for feeding the poor. A portion of the income of each family would be pooled and used to support the community, especially during times of duress (such as medical expenses or job losses), and for basic outreach benevolences. Childcare and homeschooling would also be provided in this model, with every family chipping in. Group meals could also be planned, as well as allowances made for private dinners devoted to the needs of each individual family. The items that many families duplicate (yard care, basic tools, even vehicles) could be pooled in order to save money, while time can be saved not having to work and shop for duplicated items, freeing folks up to spend more time in devotion to the Lord.

Despite this idea of ours, I’m not completely ready to give up on the current model we have used for so long. It may not be perfect, but that imperfection may lie more in our inability to stay true to the Gospel message than in our lack of replicating the Book of Acts’ style of church meeting to a “T.” There is much to be said for the synergy a church of two hundred or more can bring to a locality when all two hundred souls are on the same page spiritually, right with God and with each other. You just can’t get that with any other style of church meeting.

That’s what I am hoping for now in the church we just joined, at least. Should we grow that into something more “organic,” then great. But for now, I’m not going to get flustered by yet another (somewhat) new direction in ecclesiology. You shouldn’t, either.