Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

God bless us every one.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

Shalom and blessings,
Matt

Sol Invictus (or Saturnalia) was a festival to celebrate the birth of the “Unconquerable Sun” at the winter solstice when the sun starts to “grow” again (at least in the northern hemisphere). It has been suggested that Christianity has adopted the date of Christmas to be aligned with this pagan Roman festival (as early as the 4th century). What does this suggest about the nature of Christmas?

But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. (Malachi 4.2 NAS)

Christianity truly made claim to that festival. Instead of worshiping a pagan notion of our sun conquering darkness, God’s Son came to be worshipped as the conqueror of darkness.

Christmas comes from the Middle English Christemasse literally meaning “Christ’s Mass.” I hope that Christians can reclaim this true meaning. I know this seems so cliché to say now, but really, this is the ultimate Mass. I am not Catholic by any means, but I can at least understand the importance. Go ahead, call it X-mas, I am ok with that, I know what X means.

I will try to save the typical “This is what Christmas is really all about…” I am sure you have all heard it, but are you living it? Do you really believe it? While the King James Version is not the most accurate, I think their rendition of Luke 2.14 is still appropriate and should be followed.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

The more accurate (like from the NAS)

Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased

is just as appropriate for this season. God is pleased with His people (even though he usually shouldn’t be) and has given us this celebration of the birth of the incarnate son. He is so pleased with us that He sent the Incarnate to die as the Suffering Servant for us. I encourage everyone to really look at who this Baby Jesus is and what He will do for us all. I leave you with this passage, I hope you will mediate on it, I hope it will bring you to tears in the realization that the tiny Baby Jesus whose birth we are about to celebrate is the same Jesus who took brutal beatings and a torturous death for us. Isaiah 52.13 – 53.12 from The Message

Just watch my servant blossom!
Exalted, tall, head and shoulders above the crowd!
But he didn’t begin that way.
At first everyone was appalled.
He didn’t even look human—
a ruined face, disfigured past recognition.
Nations all over the world will be in awe, taken aback,
kings shocked into silence when they see him.
For what was unheard of they’ll see with their own eyes,
what was unthinkable they’ll have right before them.”
Who believes what we’ve heard and seen?
Who would have thought GOD’s saving power would look like this?
The servant grew up before God—a scrawny seedling,
a scrubby plant in a parched field.
There was nothing attractive about him,
nothing to cause us to take a second look.
He was looked down on and passed over,
a man who suffered, who knew pain firsthand.
One look at him and people turned away.
We looked down on him, thought he was scum.
But the fact is, it was our pains he carried—
our disfigurements, all the things wrong with us.
We thought he brought it on himself,
that God was punishing him for his own failures.
But it was our sins that did that to him,
that ripped and tore and crushed him—our sins!
He took the punishment, and that made us whole.
Through his bruises we get healed.
We’re all like sheep who’ve wandered off and gotten lost.
We’ve all done our own thing, gone our own way.
And GOD has piled all our sins, everything we’ve done wrong,
on him, on him.
He was beaten, he was tortured,
but he didn’t say a word.
Like a lamb taken to be slaughtered
and like a sheep being sheared,
he took it all in silence.
Justice miscarried, and he was led off—
and did anyone really know what was happening?
He died without a thought for his own welfare,
beaten bloody for the sins of my people.
They buried him with the wicked,
threw him in a grave with a rich man,
Even though he’d never hurt a soul
or said one word that wasn’t true.
Still, it’s what GOD had in mind all along,
to crush him with pain.
The plan was that he give himself as an offering for sin
so that he’d see life come from it—life, life, and more life.
And GOD’s plan will deeply prosper through him.
Out of that terrible travail of soul,
he’ll see that it’s worth it and be glad he did it.
Through what he experienced, my righteous one, my servant,
will make many “righteous ones,”
as he himself carries the burden of their sins.
Therefore I’ll reward him extravagantly—
the best of everything, the highest honors—
Because he looked death in the face and didn’t flinch,
because he embraced the company of the lowest.
He took on his own shoulders the sin of the many,
he took up the cause of all the black sheep.

Merry Christmas to everyone. May God Bless you and your family in this time of celebration and may you realize that God is still there if you can’t celebrate.
May you truly live in God’s Shalom and peace.

-Matt

Original post with comments. [UPDATE: The original post and comments are no longer available. Sorry!]

This is another book review I wrote on Henri Nouwen’s Return of the Prodigal Son, a spiritual jorney based on Rembrandt’s oil painting of the same time which itself is a pictoral representation of a parable told by Jesus in Luke.

This was a very nice book, was some very good insights to a spiritual walk with God. If you don’t read the review, at least read these two quotes that I think are a pretty good representation of what the book had to say.

“God rejoices. Not because the problems of the world have been solved, not because all human pain and suffering have come to an end, nor because thousnads of people have been converted and are now praising him for his goodness. No, God rejoices because one of his children who was lost has been found.”

And

“…once you choose to claim the joy hidden in the midst of all suffering, life becomes celebration. Joy never denies sadness, but transforms it to a fertile soil for more joy.”

Your should read the book. I also have included a picture of the Rembrandt at the end, it really is a gorgeous painting.

Nouwen, Henri J.M. The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming.
Cambridge, New York: Doubleday, 1992.

This book is a reflection on Rembrandt’s oil painting, Return of the Prodigal Son. The painting is a representation of the parable Jesus told in Luke (15.11-32). The book is a journey that Nouwen takes as he moves through the three main characters in the painting and parable: the lost son, the older son, and the father. As is the case with the parable, Nouwen encourages a “homecoming” to our Eternal Father in God. The intent of this reflection is nicely stated in the thesis: “…I hope and pray that you too will discover within yourselves not only the lost children of God, but also the compassionate mother and father that is God” (23).

The book is laid out in three main sections along with an introduction, prologue and conclusion. The three main parts are reflections on the three main characters and how Nouwen has associated with them.

The prologue and introduction invite us on the spiritual journey that Nouwen has taken because of this painting. The framework of this reflection is that of Nouwen trying to discern where God would lead him in his career and the search for deeper understanding of the Rembrandt. After being able to study the original work at The Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia, as well as taking a position at “Daybreak” (a community for mentally handicapped people), Nouwen asserts that we have all filled the roles of the prodigal and elder son and should aspire to fill the role of the unconditionally loving father.

The first part of the book relates to the younger, “prodigal” son. This part is broken into three chapters. The first chapter shows how Rembrandt saw himself as the prodigal son: a proud man spending and wasting his money on lavish things that lost everything. The second chapter discusses the implications of the young son leaving the father. “Leaving home means ignoring the truth that God has ‘fashioned me in secret, molded me in the depths of the earth and knitted me together in my mother’s womb’” (37). Nouwen points out the often that voice calling us “Beloved” is often still and soft, especially compared to the louder voices of this world, but God’s love is not forced upon us. The third chapter discusses the return of the prodigal. Sometimes it takes us losing everything for us to see what we truly had. Nouwen points to Rembrandt leaving the short sword on the waist of the young son as a sign that he does not forget that he is his father’s son, the father he must return to. The path back is a difficult one especially when we still think the Father’s love is conditional. Nouwen then also suggests that Jesus is the ultimate prodigal son: He is rejected by those around Him after leaving the house of His loving Father who then returns to God on His knees at the Cross.

The second part reflects on the elder son who has stayed in his father’s house. This section, like the first, starts with a short chapter describing how Rembrandt was like the older son as well: bitter, eager for revenge, arrogant, and on. The second chapter of this section shows how the elder son, while not physically, has also left his father’s house. Often it is felt that, because one has stayed with the Father, blessings are more deserved. Resentment can be built up and doesn’t surface until tough situations and poor responses are made. Nouwen suggests that people become so worried about not sinning that repressed feelings can build up and take away from the freedom of the Father’s house. The third chapter of this section reflects on the return of the elder son. In some ways it is more difficult for the elder son to return as it can be difficult to move on from resentments held. Thankfully the father loves both sons equally and has called them both Beloved. Nouwen talks of the choice that must be made with respect to gratitude: one can either “choose to be grateful even when [one’s] emotions and feelings are still steeped in hurt and resentment” (85) or one can remain bitter. Both sons are therefore called to accept their father’s love and should cause a movement towards the likeness of the father.

The third part is the final focus: the father. Nouwen suggests that the father is who Christinas should strive to be like. The first chapter in this section, as with the first two sections, relates Rembrandt to the father. After many years of being the prodigal and the elder son, Rembrandt realized that the Father was who he should look to. The second chapter reflects on the welcome the father gives both sons. After having been alienated from their home, the sins of both sons are overlooked and they are both greeted by their father as Beloved. The Father has qualities of both the patriarch as well as the tender comforter of mother. Nouwen surmises that Christians are called to change their mindset to that of one who delights in God’s graciousness even if it appears that it has been more favorable to someone else (104). The third chapter of this section brings the reflection to a conclusion. The reality of the father’s love calls for a celebration. “God rejoices. Not because the problems of the world have been solved…. No, God rejoices because one of his children who was lost has been found” (114). The last reflection is that of moving forward: Christians are the returning son (the prodigal or the elder) and must claim that sonship and become the father (119).
The conclusion goes on to reiterate the idea that there is a need to come home to the Father and claim sonship by growing in Him; one cannot remain a child. Nouwen also recounts his spiritual journey by walking through the steps he took through the two sons on the way to the father.

Nouwen’s reflections are quite deep. They will cause a person to look at their heart and how they see the relationship between themselves and God. The one thing that could have strengthened his argument would be a shift of emphasis of the painting to the parable of Jesus. The book is a reflection of the painting, but that painting is a reflection of the parable. Nouwen, at times, makes it seem like the nuances that can be learned come from the painting and not the parable. His conclusions are all quite valid and can be arrived at regardless of which has more emphasis but would have had more root had they been in Jesus and not Rembrandt.

The way he laid out the book, focusing on the three main characters individually, helped his argument as each character has a sense of forward movement that can be applied to many different people at different times in their life. Because people can relate to one of the characters at different times, it is easy to find meaning in the other sections because it is likely that they will, at another time, relate to that character as well.

One thing that impressed me positively about this book is how close Nouwen was with the Rembrandt painting. This touched me very close as this painting has really affected me deeply. He was able to describe what my heart felt and that changed the way I looked at the painting as well as how I relate to the Father.

Another thing that impressed me positively about this book is how personal it was to Nouwen. The book wasn’t simply a discussion about some theological principle, it was about how the painting, the parable and the Father touched his life. This reflection moves Nouwen in a profound way and causes him to grow closer to God.

One thing that impressed me negatively about this book is Nouwen’s lack of connection between his reflections and how they led him to working with the Daybreak community. This book was such a personal reflection on Nouwen’s spiritual journey that also led him to that community and I wish he would have explored that connection more.

A second thing that impressed me negatively was his discussion of sorrow in our joy. I understand that with knowledge of the Truth we can take joy in everything, but just because we can, doesn’t mean that we do or know how. It would have been nice to hear more reflections on how, in the context of being one of the sons on the way to the father, should use joy to understand or help deal with sorrow. This would especially be helpful in being open and honest with the unbelieving around us. We are all on a journey and how to help each other on that journey would have made for good insight.

I have a somewhat sociological question for the blogosphere. What make someone (YOU) decide to call himself or herself a Christian? This question can be applied to many things, but I am specifically interested in its relation to Christianity.

To YOU, what is a defining characteristic that would lead you to say, “Yes, I am a Christian!”? I am assuming for many “devout” Christians this will be a fairly simple question. I would really like to hear from people who consider themselves “marginal” Christians (not marginal people, mind you), those who don’t consider themselves devout.

Why do some people consider themselves Christian if certain Christian beliefs aren’t held? I am guess that many people would consider Jesus a good person but if asked about his divinity, they might shy away. Or if pressed about Christianity being the Truth and therefore nothing else could be, there are Christians that might distance themselves. My question, then, is why is there the need to call yourself Christian?

It seems there are many “church-goers” out there, but it is always difficult to have an accurate representation of “real” Christians. Of course this brings up the problem of what a “real” Christian is. Far be it from me to say who is and who isn’t. For this “exercise” I am more concerned with why people feel they have to fit into that category if they don’t consider themselves devout. Is being a Deist not inclusive enough?

I am quite curious to hear what people have to say about this.

Shalom

Please head over to the original post to read the extensive discussion. [UPDATE: The original post and comments are no longer available. Sorry!]

UPDATE: The discussion has been great in the comments section, I would love to hear from more of you!

UPDATE: Glenn (hope you don’t mind the link Glenn!) has posted some more insightful thoughts on this subject over here.

PS, On a side note, Get Fuzzy is funny.

Ok, this is really funny, you really need to go read this article at MSNBC.

I am all for Christians evangelizing, but this is a little over the top…

Shalom

Once again I was listening to one of my favorite bands, Five Iron Frenzy, and was listening to their song “The Cross Of St. Andrew.” I realized that I didn’t know much about Andrew. Theses are the things that I knew and found out (a lot of the info has come from “Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible,” here, and here.)

Andrew (which means “manly” in the Greek) was one of the 12 apostles and the brother of Peter. He was a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee by trade. Tradition tells us that he went to preach in Scythia (Greece) and crucified in Achaia (a region in Greece) at Patras. There is an apocryphal book called “Acts of Andrew” which is largely thought to be fictional but in the spirit of the Christian mindset in the 2nd century. The story goes into Andrew’s missionary trips throughout Asia performing different miracles. The account tells of Andrew healing and converting the wife (who then takes an oath of celibacy) and brother of proconsul Aegeates. Aegetes then takes revenge by having Andrew flogged and crucified. Traditions has it that he was to be crucified in the same way that Christ was but objected saying he wasn’t worthy so the crucifix was turned sideways like an X (a saltire). Andrew preaches from the cross for three days and reportedly says “O good cross! Made beautiful by the limbs of Christ, so long desired, now so happily found! Receive me into thy arms and present me to my Master, that He who redeemed me through thee may now accept me from thee!”

Andrew is the patron saint of Scotland whose flag bears the white cross (actually the X, saltire) of St. Andrew. Andrew is also the patron saint of Russia where many flags are also adorned with the saltire.

Andrew has become a symbol for spreading God’s Gospel and someone who truly understood Jesus’ grace and mercy at the Cross.

“The Cross Of St. Andrew” – Five Iron Frenzy

One missed step can make you stumble,
you set yourself up for a fall.
You punish yourself for each failure,
dogma beat out alcohol.
When all of your principles were fashioned,
you thought that your new rules made you new.
But maybe those X’s on your hands,
are what’s killing you.

[Chorus]

The Cross of Saint Andrew,
never meant to take His place.
The Cross of Saint Andrew,
echoes of His grace.

When Saint Andrew knew the measure,
he knew the cost of sacrifice,
he left all that he knew behind him,
great things come at such great price.
But all of this never brought the answers,
obedience comes with controversy,
what changed him changes me today,
Christ has mercy.

[Bridge]
All your sins can be forgiven,
all of this was always free.
Jesus loves without condition,
this is what freedom means to me.

Nihil ergo nunc damnationis est
his qui sunt in Christo Iesu qui non
secundum carnem ambulant.

[Translated: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (Rom 8.1f)]

I found this to be a pretty interesting search for info on someone I didn’t know that much about!

Shalom

Addendum:
So here are a few thoughts of mine if reference to what the first stanza (especially the dogma beat out alcohol line).

I am not positive about this one, but this is how I see it: Christians set very high standards for ourselves because, eventhough we know it isn’t true, we feel we have to show ourselves worthy to get in to heaven. Because of this we are really hard on ourselves when we screw up. Hence the first few lines of the song. I think the next step is we can be come very legalistic about some things, including (especially?) relating to alcohol. We try and remove anything that could be construed as bad and become legalistic about things so we can try and remain closer to God. [Edit that wasn't in the email, thought I should be a little more concise here] This is what the “dogma beat out alcohol” line means, our legalism, dogma, have tried to remove anything “bad” eventhough alcohol isn’t necessarily bad. Then they go on to say “When all of your principles were fashioned, you thought that your new rules made you new.” They say this because it turns out that our legalistic nature is, indeed, not what has saved us but God’s good grace. The crosses on our hands are those rules we think we have to follow in order to be Christ but they are killing us because that has become our focus instead of Christ himself.

Any thoughts there?

[UPDATE: Original post and comments are no longer available. sorry!]

Here I am at work at 4:00am. It is very strange to be working so early in the morning. I am working over-nights this week so I go to bed at around 5:30 and wake up in the afternoon. Eventhough I know I should sleep late, I still, for some reason, feel guilty when waking at at 2 in the afternoon!

I guess my couisn had her baby last night at around 8:00pm. That is way cool and I really look forward to seeing him!

Today in Bible study we talked about what it means to be a Christian in the fallen world. It was a pretty interesting discussion dealing with how we relate to both Christians and non-Christians. Should their be boundaries surround activities you do with your non-Christian friends (such as seeing “bad” movies), should you not listen to certain music, should you not say certain things? This was interesting because on a Christian message board that I frequent, something of this nature came up. I had called Alex Rodriguez a “putz” and it was censored. This struck me as being odd as “putz” isn’t even being very harsh and I even see it as being more jocular compared to calling someone a moron. The reason that was given to me was that someone was offended by the word. Now I should be sensitive to other people and as was pointed out to me, Romans 14.1-4 states:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. {2} One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. {3} The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. {4} Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

This is completly correct and should always be followed. That being said, shouldn’t there be a point in a Christian’s life where they have to grow up and mature beyond the point at getting offended by such silly things? Now “silly” is a relative term and something that seems silly to be is obviously not necessarily silly to someone else. But still, Christians should always be spurring each other on to grown in their faith and that means to focus on what is important which is living for God and loving those around us.

I guess that is somewhat of a digression, but oh well. I have to get back to work for another hour so that is all for now.

Shalom

[UPDATE: the original post and comments are no longer available at ModBlog sorry!]