vase glue: what is the nature of things — part one

what if through the cross, our nature has been fully redeemed?

what if we have been truly forgiven once and for all?

what if we no longer need to focus on our sin?

but rather ask and wrestle with the question: what does it mean to be christ in my context? what if…

some broken vases are fixable. they have the ability to be put back together. with some really strong glue from some magical place that sales vase glue. but to be sure, for the most part, if we can agree (generally speaking) “all vases can be fixed somehow someway”.

we have this language of sin and depravity (all men are weak and fallen) that has been floating around through the halls of churches for thousands of years now, about how we all have messed up, we all have taken the wrong path and have made completely destructive decisions that have hurt ourselves and those around us. i do agree with this. well, to an extent.

a Harvard rabbi named Jesus ben joseph (sidenote: there is historical proof that the Bet Sefer school jesus would have attended, would have been more like that of our modern-day Harvard university — yep, we have a posh Jesus — lol) came on the scene, into Jerusalem during a politically confusing time. Even his birth was a political statement. Astrologers woud have picked up on the star in the sky as that being a symbol of a King being born, but wouldn’t have realized who until arriving in Bethelehem. We do know this, it was a politically-charged moved from heaven. jesus popped on the scene and started talking about a different “way” of living life. then he told some of his friends that he came to save the world. not 500 times over, but once and for all. christ substituted himself for the world. everyone. he came to not only save us from sin, but to draw us into God and his kingdom. Jesus did that for us. He doesn’t have to keep doing that. I want to take the general method of scholastic philosophy and apply that here to study Christianity. i think for the most part, we have lost the art to see the big picture. i think this focus on sn has gotten in the way of the cross. when in truth, the cross already overshadowed sin. so, why do we focus on sin? Well, sin is recognizable. we know what it means to kill (maybe not in the heart, but physically we do), we know what it means to steal, lie, commit adultery and give praise to other kinds of gods’…we all know all too well. recognizing sin gives us some sense of definable control over others, but, we fail to realize that it also gives that same control to others over us. sin makes us feel safe. well, at least pointing out the sin in others. And Jesus told us all that he came to annihilate it, obliterate it. and we still focus on it. it is like someone who loses a limb and still tries to scratch at the ghost limb that is no longer there, but for some odd reason feels like it is. sin is just like that. the devil is our enemy. he wants us destroyed. and if it means we focus on his distorted dream (called “sin”) then we will be distracted when it comes to our development in jesus. if we focus on something that the cross of christ already has taken away once and for all (so, either it means everything (sin) is already gone or it doesn’t? your choice.) then it’s as if we are saying the cross wasn’t good enough. it’s as we if we say “thanks, but no thanks!” it’s hard to accept an unmerited gift, for most, we a need a reason why or we become highly critical of the gift. we feel guilty before we even receive it. we believe the gift-giver has ulterior us, the giver has to expect something in return. but this gift-giver is different, this one, he’s a lover. you see us realizing and accepting the reality and power of the cross enables us to be truly free in christ. free to be who christ intended us to be. this is not what the evil one wants. his greatest fear is us realizing who we are in christ. who are you?


One comment

  1. societyvs · May 25, 2009

    “who are you?” (Traveler)

    If we are being defined by an action and a person that occured some 2000 years ago…question is who was he? I think if we place all the focus on the Christ and what he did/taught – then our definition of him will also define our direction. Jesus never wrote a word – wasn’t a scribe obviously (we can rule that out) – so we rely on 2nd hand material couched in various narratives.

    For example, the Matthew Jesus and the John Jesus seem a lot different, then Paul’s version also seems a little more different than those narratives. So we become the definition of the narrative we think is most like the Jesus we admire (or the themes we see most prelevant in the combination of the stories).

    I am a fan of the way Jesus is portrayed in Matthew vs. the way Jesus is portrayed in John. I think in Matthew we get closer to a Jewish Jesus than what John is writing – seems more Gentile over all.

    In the end, the church makes it the point to remove ‘us’ from those gospels…and that is an absolute failure on the churches part.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s