The Emmaus Disciples, Bloemaert

Journey into New Life, part six
Made Known at the Table (Luke 24)

Our Gospel text for this Easter season is Luke 24:13-35, the story of the risen Lord’s encounter with his disciples on the road to Emmaus.

In this passage Luke tells us what it means to walk with the living Lord Jesus Christ. It is more than a story of something that happened back then. It represents what newness of life is all about, how it works, and what it is like to experience the new creation.

We are the disciples on the road, and Jesus comes to walk with us.

• • •

“He was known to them in the breaking of bread” (Luke 24:35)

I want to make today’s post personal.

This is the text that settled it for me. Luke’s inspired words convinced me that something more than “remembering” is going on at the Lord’s Table. There is a real presence: the living Lord is really and truly there. He meets us there and feeds us. He reveals himself to us in the Eucharist and welcomes us into communion with him.

Communion is more about Jesus inviting me, greeting me, blessing me, feeding me, and loving me than it is about me “remembering” him.

This is the passage that made me a sacramental Christian.

I don’t know how to talk about this in Aristotelian philosophical formulas. I have no Latin term to define it. I can’t explain the mystery of how the Lord Jesus Christ, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, also meets people personally and savingly all over the this world when they come to the communion table. I can’t give you a physical/metaphysical breakdown of the composition of the bread and wine.

But this eyewitness testimony from Emmaus is what first persuaded me that the table set with Eucharistic elements is one of the primary “thin places” in the world where the presence of Christ is manifested. It has to do with new creation breaking into this creation. It has to do with the Spirit making it possible for the Father and the risen Son to come and “make their abode with us” (see Jn 14:23). It is the living presence of Christ among his people. He is made known to us in the breaking of the bread.

I don’t think there is any argument about this, and I’m past arguing about it.

I’m also past regularly participating in Lord’s Day services where the Table is not prominent and featured. I do so once in awhile, and only because I’m invited as a guest speaker or visiting with family or friends in another congregation. Frankly, on those occasions, I’m left somewhat empty. I may appreciate the sermon, find joy in praising God through song, be comforted by the prayers. But I don’t find the same resolution; there’s no punctuation at the end of the service when we come forward as brothers and sisters together to meet Jesus and receive his gracious gifts.

To me, that’s what this Emmaus story would be like if it had ended on the doorstep of Cleopas’s house. The two disciples would have had good fellowship with a friendly stranger. They would have talked to him about their lives and disappointments, and heard a fine Bible study. A good walk, a good time together. Like a lot of services in which I’ve participated.

What if they had let him go on down the road at that point, as it seemed the stranger was wont to do? What would they have missed?

Jesus.

Nice job, Tom. But I gotta get me one of those “double helix” guitars!

First Things First

• • •

Jesus-shaped Christianity will grow out of the soil of a Story-shaped Gospel. The more we immerse ourselves in the Story and get to know the Gospels, the greater the impact the Gospel of King Jesus will have in and through us.

That is the burden of this series, which encourages Christians and churches to make the Gospels (and Acts) the primary documents for forming our Christian identity, theology, and calling.

For the next few weeks, we will give brief introductions to each Gospel to prime the pump for your individual and congregational study and contemplation. At the end of each, I will recommend a few good commentaries to take you further.

“Matthew probably functions as a discipling manual, a ‘handbook’ of Jesus’ basic life and teaching, relevant to a Jewish Christian community engaged in Gentile mission and deadlocked in scriptural polemic with their local synagogue communities.”

• Craig Keener

The Gospels are more than historical accounts of the life of Jesus. They are carefully crafted theological works designed to give each author’s inspired perspective on the Good News of Jesus. Each Gospel writer selected certain events and teachings from Jesus’ ministry and developed his own unique portrait for a specific audience.

When we study the Gospels, one goal is to understand the unique emphasis of each Gospel writer. Each evangelist tells the Story somewhat differently. The first three Gospels are called “synoptic” because they follow the same basic outline of events, but there are significant differences even in the approaches of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Seeing the unique emphasis of each author involves observing the way each one:

• Organizes his work (structure)
• Includes and excludes certain things in his work (selection)
• Emphasizes certain things in his work (significance)

Today, a brief overview of the Gospel of Matthew in these terms.

MATTHEW’S STRUCTURE
Papias, a bishop in the early church, wrote that Matthew gathered the stories and sayings of Jesus and put them together in a “Hebrew” style that was orderly in its approach. When one examines the structure of Matthew, two characteristics stand out:

1. The alternation of stories and teachings
Jesus’ teachings are gathered together into five “discourses” or “sermons,” with the stories of Jesus’ ministry placed in groups in between them.

• Stories (1-4)
• ch. 5-7: The Sermon on the Mount
• Stories (8-9)
• ch. 10: The Mission Discourse
• Stories (11-12)
• ch. 13: The Parables of the Kingdom
• Stories (14-17)
• ch. 18: The New Community
• Stories (19-22)
• ch. 23-25: The Coming Crisis
• Stories (26-28)

2. The clustering of material into groups of threes and sevens
There are many examples of this, including the threefold arrangement of Jesus’ genealogy (ch. 1), and the three parables that conclude the Olivet Discourse (ch. 25). Sevenfold groups include seven healings in ch. 8-9, seven parables (ch. 13), and seven woes (ch. 23).

Why would Matthew arrange his material so carefully? The conclusion of the book may give a key: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’” (28:18-20, NIV).

The Gospel of Matthew is a Torah, a catechism, an instruction manual for the church. Matthew presents the Good News of Jesus in such a way that it can be taught easily in making disciples and teaching them Jesus’ way. The highly organized structure of the book lends itself to learning, memorization, and meditation.

MATTHEW’S EMPHASES
Through inclusion and exclusion of various elements (which can only be fully appreciated through comparison studies with the other Gospels), and other ways of emphasizing themes such as repetition, Matthew highlights the following (among others):

1. Jesus, the new Moses: In Matthew’s early chapters, Jesus is portrayed as a baby with an unusual birth who is persecuted by an evil king who slaughters children in an attempt to kill him, who is forced to flee, and who returns “out of Egypt.” One might also mention how Jesus at the outset of his ministry ascends the mount to bring a new word from God to his people.

2. Jesus, Son of David and Son of God: “Son of David” is often used in contexts where Jesus ministers to the needy — he is the Promised King who has mercy on the poor and brings them healing (1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30-31, 21:9/15, 22:42-45, see Isaiah 35:5-6). “Son of God” appears at significant times in Jesus’ ministry where his special relationship with the Father is stressed (3:17, 4:3, 11:27, 14:33, 17:5, 24:36, 26:63, 27:40-43) and where humans perceive his identity (16:16, 27:54).

3. The kingdom of heaven: The kingdom is God’s reign over all people through Jesus Christ, the One who fulfills Israel’s story and presents himself as the Messiah, fulfilling God’s promises and inaugurating the Messianic Age (1:1, 2:1-12, 4:17/23, 5:19-20, 8:11-12, 11:12, 12:28, ch. 13, 16:19, 21:5, 23:13, ch. 25, 26:29, 28:18). The fulfillment of prophecy is introduced by a formula unique to Matthew (1:22, 2:15-23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:14/35, 21:4, 26:54/56, 27:9). More than any of the other Gospels, Matthew makes the point that Jesus brought that for which Israel was waiting and hoping through the Hebrew Scriptures.

4. Jewish rejection and Gentile inclusion: Matthew is considered one of the most Jewish-oriented of the Gospels, emphasizing the Law and Jewish traditions and making the point that Jesus specifically limited his ministry to Jews during his lifetime. On the other hand, Matthew makes much of the positive responses of Gentiles to Jesus. He specifies God’s coming judgment because of the Jewish leaders’ unbelief (ch. 23) and proclaims the emergence of a renewed people of God that will welcome an influx of Gentiles (8:11-12, 22:43, 28:18-20).

5. The renewed community: The word “church” is found in the Gospels only in Matthew (16:18, 18:17), and Matthew includes an entire discourse about the lives and relationships of those who will live in the renewed community of the forgiven and forgiving (ch. 18). This community is to be extended throughout the world to include “all nations” (28:18-20).

6. The end of the age: All four Gospels are eschatological — they focus on the new thing God is doing and will do in the world, fulfilling his promises, and bringing about the new creation. Matthew has a profound focus on this, through the parables that foretell the consummation of the kingdom (ch. 13), the death of Jesus that portends the raising of the saints (27:51-53), the coming destruction of Jerusalem, the vindication of the Son of Man in fulfillment of the apocalyptic vision of Daniel (ch. 24, 28:18), and the carrying of the Good News to the ends of the earth (24:14, 28:18-20). All serve to point to Jesus as the One through whom God is inaugurating and will bring to consummation the Messianic Age of promise.

• • •

At a climactic point in Matthew’s Gospel (27:33-54), Jesus dies on the cross after crying out with a loud voice. Matthew says that the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom and an earthquake shook the ground so that tombs were opened and the saints were raised. At that point, a Gentile centurion utters the words that bring our attention to the main point of the Gospel: “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Jesus the Messiah, Son of David and Son of God, the new Moses has come to inaugurate a new covenant to renew God’s people and spread the kingdom throughout the whole world until the consummation of all things.

And at the heart of the Story is a cross and empty tomb.

___________

A few good commentaries on Matthew:

• Matthew for Everyone: Chapters 1-15, N.T. Wright
• Matthew for Everyone: Chapters 16-28, N.T. Wright
• Matthew (IVP NT Commentary), Craig Keener
• Matthew, Vol.1 (Ch. 1-12), Expositor’s Bible Commentary, D.A. Carson
• Matthew, Vol.2 (Ch. 13-28), Expositor’s Bible Commentary, D.A. Carson
• The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina), Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.

Update: several have noted  the plane crash last Friday, in which Ron Luce’s daughter was seriously injured. Out of respect for the Teen Mania family, please stick to the concept we’re discussing and do not direct your comments at this specific ministry.

Note: This post is NOT a specific critique of the ministry cited. Please don’t focus comments on Teen Mania or Acquire the Fire. My point is that this slogan represents a fairly common (and in my opinion, misguided) mindset in the evangelical world.

• • •

The 2012 Acquire the Fire tour has begun and the message being proclaimed this year is, “Normal is not enough.”

For me, that depends upon what you mean by “normal.”

If the message is that Christians are to respond to the grace of God in Christ and center their lives on him in contrast to those who care little for Jesus and think that is “normal,” well OK.

But I suspect it goes beyond that. I’ve heard this message a thousand times, even given it during my years as an evangelical pastor. This is the “attempt great things for God, expect great things from God” message. The “no small ambitions” message. This is the challenge to be extraordinary: “the world has yet to see what God will do with one person who is wholly devoted to him.”

Which is fine, except that “great things for God” ends up only being a few distinctively “Christian” things. “Normal” things aren’t enough. A select few end up responding to this message and going into “Christian service,” and the vast majority go on to live “normal” lives. And wondering if they missed the boat, or let God down, or just settled for being second class in the kingdom. Or worse, they continually crash after experiencing any number of intense spiritual highs and decide the whole “Christian” thing is bogus and can’t be sustained in the context of “normal” life.

One of the great burdens of Martin Luther’s reforming efforts was to restore the dignity and importance of “normal” life as the main vocation highly honored and blessed by God. Luther had crashed and burned trying to be an “extraordinary” Christian in the monastery and out of that experience he came to preach passionately against any suggestion that such “works” put people in some “inner circle” before God.

As Rev. Paul T. McClain writes, “Encouraging people to seek to live a ‘higher’ Christian life in monastic communities, as Luther says in this article ‘conflicts with the chief article on redemption through Jesus Christ.’ How is that? When the Church teaches, or creates the impression, that by observing humanly devised services to God, one is in fact bringing oneself closer to God, making oneself more holy in God’s eyes, then the merits of Christ are obscured, clouded and eventually set aside in favor of a focus on the ‘higher’ calling invented by man.”

Come to think of it, when I read the Bible, I don’t see Jesus and the apostles engaged in this kind of hype either. Ever.

A normal life in Christ seems to be just fine with them.

Why isn’t it for us?

From Derision to Compassion: The Death of Junior Seau

Nick’s blog: My Series of Tubes

• • •

It was like a switch was thrown. I was at an open gym, shooting baskets with a bunch of guys, talking about the news of the day: the apparent suicide of former NFL great and presumptive Hall of Famer Junior Seau. Many of the guys couldn’t believe that a man who was so famous, so rich, who had so much, could be depressed. What could possibly be so bad about his life that it wasn’t worth living? The tone of the conversation quickly became derisive. Seau must have been weak. Fragile. Pathetic. Then someone suggested that his brain may have been irreparably damaged by the numerous minor head traumas he suffered over the course of his playing career.

It was like a switch was thrown. All of a sudden, no one had a cutting remark. No one was talking about how satisfied they were with so much less than Seau had. We recalled the story of Dave Duerson, another former NFL player who committed suicide, who had shot himself in the chest expressly so that his brain could be studied; he had known his depression was physically sourced (subsequent medical examination of his brain proved him right). The mood in the gym became somber, and the tone, compassionate.

I couldn’t believe how quickly derision became compassion. Then I realized what had really happened: the group had collectively transitioned from seeing Seau as basically “able,” that is, in control of and responsible for his actions and mental state, to basically “disabled,” that is, the victim of forces beyond his control. It is only natural to feel derision for people who are able to control themselves and do not, and just as natural to feel compassion for people who are unable to control themselves.

Here’s the thing: Christians are disabled. Not especially disabled, just as disabled as non-Christians. It is easy for us, especially the preachers and ministers among us, to think of Christians as “able” in a way that they (read: we) are not.

And the result? Derision.

If we see people as fundamentally able to make good choices, possessing the ability to improve, and able to control their minds, our ability to be compassionate toward them will wither and die. This is particularly damaging (as you might imagine) for preachers and pastors, but will damage any relationship.

At one time in my life, a close friend confided in me that he and his girlfriend were having sex. We prayed together, and I assumed that that would be the end of it. But, despite their stated desire not to, they kept doing it! I know: you’re shocked. At the time, though, I was shocked. I couldn’t understand (I was comically blind to my own nature…as, of course, I remain to this day) how someone could continually do something that he didn’t want to do (Romans 7:14-20). As my friend’s confessions to me mounted, my compassion for him withered. Finally, it was replaced by anger: why couldn’t he just stop?

As a pastor, I have come to know that Paul’s words in Romans 7 are not only true, but fundamental to pastoral care for people. Compassion cannot exist where we see people as “able,” because people are inveterate failures. Pastors will either come to hate their people (because they’re not following your good advice) or themselves (because you’re not communicating the advice well enough). In either case, hatred is the end result.

If we are to avoid hating those closest to us (including ourselves!), and are to avoid heaping scorn on those further away, we must begin to see people as the “disabled” creatures that they are. Like Paul, and potentially, Junior Seau, they often “do the very thing they hate.” We can only be there, compassionately, when they cry out for a savior, with the Good News that there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).

The other day I watched a video clip from a message he gave at the 2012 Verve Conference in which he asserted that genuine Christian fellowship is missional fellowship.

I think Francis Chan is partly right there, but the way he said it was striking and revelatory of the way many evangelicals today read and interpret Scripture.

I have included a transcript of what Chan said below. If you want to watch and hear him say it, click HERE.

If I just read the Scriptures, I wouldn’t even think so much about the gathering. You know–Like, my first thought wouldn’t be, “Let’s have a gathering.” Out of the Scriptures, I would think, “I’m on a mission. Like, I love this God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and now I’ve got to go out and make disciples.” That’s what I would think. I need to go out there and just reach as many people as I can! I’m supposed to teach them to obey everything that’s God commanded–that’s what I would get out of Scripture. And then what would happen as I did that–what I believe would naturally happen–is suddenly I would find those other people who are on that same mission because we’d be the weirdest people on earth. Right?

We would stick out, we’d be so different, and that pressure to always stay on that mission, everyone else would be beating me down, so I would actually need these brothers and sisters in my life and tell them hey don’t let me slow down, and I won’t let you slow down, we’ve got to stay on this mission together. See this is why I wasn’t into fellowship before–because I didn’t need any more friends. Okay, it wasn’t like “Oh yeah, let’s get another gathering together so I can have someone to talk to.” Like, I didn’t need accountability groups so I wouldn’t sleep around or whatever it was–I could do that, I can do that on my own. Like–not sleep around, you know what I mean? You know I don’t need that to do American church, I don’t need fellowship. But to stay on mission everyday? I need people because I’m going to get distracted–there are so many things I would rather do than make disciples. And so I need people in my life to tell me this. That’s what I would get out of Scripture, is I got to go out and start making disciples. And as I did that I really believe that I would start gathering with other people doing the same thing.

I believe in missional Christianity. And I think Francis Chan has a point about the nature of fellowship.

The Greek word “koinonia” (fellowship) is used as a commercial term in ancient literature to describe a joint venture or mutual project in which people become “partners” in the business at hand.

This is why Paul tells the Philippians he is thankful for their “partnership in the gospel from the first day until now” (NIV). The church had “participated” (NASB translation) in Paul’s work through financial support and sending a church member to be with the apostle and help him in prison (Epaphroditus, see Phil. 2:25-30).

Part of fellowship involves working together, partnering together in the mission of the Gospel. And too many churches neglect this in favor of what I’ve called a “temple mentality.”

The problem with much contemporary American evangelicalism is that it has created an alternate “kingdom,” one which is OF the world but not IN the world (the opposite of what Jesus intended). The freedom and prosperity we enjoy in this country has allowed us to withdraw from meaningful interaction with our neighbors in the context of real life situations so that we might spend time in “Christian” pursuits.

Churches are organized to satisfy this centripetal impulse. Life for many American Christians revolves around the “temple” and its program of activities for all ages and interests. It seems that the purpose of the church is to provide what Luther called a “roses and lilies” experience for people that protects them from the harsh realities of the world and the challenges of learning to relate authentically with those who don’t share our faith.

• My Issues with Evangelicalism (Mission)

Francis Chan rightly objects to temple-oriented “churchianity” and the kind of “fellowship” that primarily serves the personal comforts and needs of the church members. Too many churches, of course, are inwardly focused. Our fellowship is greatly enhanced when we break up the “holy huddle” and serve together for the sake of others.

But to say — “If I just read the Scriptures, I wouldn’t even think so much about the gathering. You know–Like, my first thought wouldn’t be, ‘Let’s have a gathering.’ Out of the Scriptures, I would think, ‘I’m on a mission…’” — that is the kind of reading and application that gets evangelicals in trouble regularly.

This view ignores the Story of the Bible and its consistent testimony to the ecclesial nature of salvation. The Story of the Bible is not only not about “me and Jesus” it is also not about “me on a mission.” It is about God forming a people, a family, a holy nation, a kingdom, a community for the new creation. It is a missional community, yes, but that’s not all it is.

It seems that the same “soterian” gospel that turns the Story into a “plan of salvation” also turns “fellowship” into a joint partnership focused on getting out that message.

It’s as if the Great Commission were the only tool in our toolbox.

The Scriptures are so much richer and more complex. The life of the Christian is a great adventure in learning to be truly human in all of its aspects, including the great adventure of living in community with others.

For example, note Luke’s description of the first Christians following the Day of Pentecost:

That day about three thousand took him at his word, were baptized and were signed up. They committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers.

Everyone around was in awe—all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person’s need was met.

They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved.

• Acts 2:42-47, MSG

How can someone read this fundamental text on the nature and practices of the church and say, “If I just read the Scriptures, I wouldn’t even think so much about the gathering”? The first Christians were devoted to it! Every day! And if this passage is any indication, their “mission” grew out of their “fellowship,” not vice versa.

Every epistle in the New Testament verifies this. Where is this constant drumbeat of mission, evangelism, “going out and reaching as many people as I can” and then joining up with others doing the same thing as my “fellowship”?

Chan has a point, but in the end, I think he must be reading a different Bible than I am.

“You are the powdered sugar of the earth. As sugar is sprinkled on cakes and cookies to make them attractive and exceedingly sweet, so you shall make my church the most delightful confection the world has known. For the children of this world have an insatiable sweet tooth, and you shall satisfy those who hunger and thirst for empty calories.

“You shall sprinkle sugar on my words so that every bitter morsel is disguised beyond recognition.

“You shall fill your gatherings with nectarous delights, amusements that thrill the crowds, so that all who participate may leave energized by the sugar-high of my Spirit.

“You shall make your church program a veritable display window of sugary treats, so that all who pass by may salivate and be drawn to purchase your pleasures and be satisfied.

“Do not ever let your sugar lose its sweetness. for then your neighbors will see the true taste and texture of your lives — the salty and the sweet, the bitter and the bland — this mixture you deem so unpalatable.

“And what will attract them then?”

It wasn’t too long ago, we had public hearings about adulterous liaisons in the Clinton White House.

This year we are being treated to the spectacle of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’s trial, in which he is accused of soliciting and secretly spending over $925,000 to cover up his adultery.

Herman Cain, Republican hopeful, suspended his campaign when he could not overcome revelations of a 13-year adulterous affair and numerous allegations of sexual harassment by some of his female employees.

Likewise, on the campaign trail this past year fellow Republican Newt Gingrich had to deal constantly with public scrutiny of his marital and extra-marital affairs. Wed three times, his two previous marriages ended in divorce after he had affairs with younger women, once when his wife was seriously ill.

I guess it could be worse. France just elected Francois Hollande, the first French president to enter office unmarried and living with his partner. Just imagine how that would play in Peoria.

Well, at any rate, now it looks as though it will be President Obama vs. Governor Romney in the U.S. November election.

When it comes to marriage, conservative Christians get mixed messages from both.

On the one hand, you have Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican candidate, who married his teenage sweetheart and has had a long traditional heterosexual marriage. He affirms his support for marriage between one man and one woman for life and says he believes the federal government should codify the institution in law. His faith is the basis for this position, he says. Mr. Romney is a Mormon, a faith that now strongly emphasizes conservative “family values,” but which was once notorious for its practice of polygamy (“plural marriage”).

Mormons officially practiced polygamy from the 1830′s until 1890. Certain Mormon sects even today continue the practice and criticize the main church body for abandoning a fundamental tenet of their faith. In 1856, the Republican party which Romney now represents had an anti-Mormon plank in its platform that berated “the twin relics of barbarism – polygamy and slavery.” In 1857-58 a conflict known as “The Utah War” saw U.S. military forces occupy the Territory of Utah under the charge of sedition and failing to honor U.S. laws (including monogamous marriage).  Under constant pressure from the government, the LDS church officially changed its stance on plural marriage in 1890, when church President Willard Woodruff issued a manifesto urging Mormons to follow the laws of the land with regard to marriage.

Today the LDS church is overwhelmingly supportive of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and Romney has conferred with leaders of the Mormon church regularly over the years about how he should approach such public issues as abortion and gay marriage so as to stay in line with church teachings. Will his faith commitment pose a problem for evangelical Christians? Although orthodox believers might envy the strong family morals Mormons promote, they still consider them theologically outside the pale of genuine Christianity, and supporting a member of a “cult” may be more than some can stomach.

For a detailed history of Romney’s actual actions regarding issues related to gay rights and marriage, see this LA Times piece. Those on the right tend to think Romney is a waffler when it comes to most political decisions and his record on gay issues may give them some ammunition to question how robust his convictions truly are.

It will be interesting to see how conservative Christians spin this. Unable to agree with Gov. Romney on doctrines of his religion and suspicious of him as a politician, I assume they will nonetheless support him based in part on his conservative social position regarding marriage. They will do this even though his position grows out of his faith, with which they disagree, and even though they see him as a political opportunist rather than as a man of real convictions.

On the other hand, you have President Obama, who is a Christian, and who also has a traditional, heterosexual marriage. He has said repeatedly that his position on gay marriage has been “evolving,” but the direction of that evolution has been clear.

The president has taken some significant steps toward advancing gay rights. His administration moved to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. And he did assist in bringing an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. military. So, although he has supported traditional marriage, and in statements has even assigned special significance to it because of his Christian faith, it is clear that he has been “evolving” toward acceptance of gay marriage. He confirmed that this week.

Like Mr. Romney, President Obama said that he came to his position via his faith. He specifically cited the “Golden Rule” taught by Jesus and said that Christian faith should not only be defined by Christ sacrificing himself for us, but also by Christians treating others as they would like to be treated.

It is unlikely that conservative Christians will do anything but condemn this. Frankly, most of the public voices I have heard from the “Christian Right” really don’t trust in President Obama’s faith and never have, and it has been rare to hear anyone engage him or take him seriously on that level. There is too much suspicion about his political motives and agendas.

According to a report in the Washington Post, the President’s announcement is already mobilizing Christians to support Gov. Romney: “Pastors in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and other swing states are readying Sunday sermons inveighing against same-sex unions, while activist groups have begun laying plans for social media campaigns, leaflet drives and other get-out-the-vote efforts centered on the same-sex marriage issue.”

As one prominent gay marriage opponent and activist stated, “We are going to make this our key issue: the attack on marriage.”

Nevertheless, the piece also points out an ongoing uncertainty among those in the religious right that Gov. Romney is fully committed to this fight. They point to statements in recent days that he supports allowing gay couples to adopt children and that he does not view same-sex marriage as a religious issue.

• • •

So, U.S. Christians, these will be your choices when it comes to presidential candidates and their views on marriage. Now that primary voters have weeded out the adulterers and philanderers, we’re left with two people with positions that conservative Christians are going to have a hard time trusting or supporting without holding their noses.

Thanks to the versatile Adam Palmer for presenting last week’s Ramblings. Yours truly was visiting with former classmates and students in Ohio last week (how come they have all gotten old, but I haven’t?), so AP stepped up to bat for me. You can read about Adam and his family—including a deep-from-the-heart story of Adam’s struggles with pornography—here. Adam is one of my closest friends, and Michelle has the best singing voice I’ve ever heard. They’re embarking on their “Group Hug America” in a few weeks. If you want to house them on their trip, or you want them to minister to your church or home group, you can also reach them on this site.

iMonk writer Mike Bell let us know that a student in Mike’s homeland of Canada was sent home from school for wearing a shirt that proclaimed his Christian faith. This week, that school system said the student could wear the shirt to school after all. Why can’t we all just get along?

In news sure to thrill frequent commenter Eagle, Sovereign Grace Ministries announced they’re moving their headquarters from Gaithersburg, Maryland to Louisville, Kentucky. While SGM has no churches in Kentucky, C.J. Mahaney says he will plant one there. I wasn’t aware that there was a shortage of churches in Louisville …

Nothing like having your college graduation become a political battleground. That’s what commencement services this weekend at Liberty University are likely to resemble as Republican (presumptive) presidential candidate and Mormon Mitt Romney speaks to Liberty’s graduates. Spin doctors are wanting Romney to use this opportunity to shore up his standing with evangelicals.  School president Jerry Falwell, Jr. says it is the job of such speakers to “to inspire and challenge the graduates and showcase Liberty and its mission.” Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, taking time off from making racist comments, said he hopes Romney tells students he has ”a similar world view, about how every child has a right, a God-given right, to have a mother and a father, and you can’t separate the financial malaise we are in from the moral malaise.” Ok then. Whatever happened to a drunken Winston Churchill giving his famous—and very short—”Never, ever, ever quit” speech?

Meanwhile, President Obama’s former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, is one of the scheduled speakers at Brian McLaren’s CYNKC conference. He’ll be speaking about how to reach Christians who have drifted away from the institutional church. I suppose he could start with President Obama, who …

…in case you slept through the whole week, declared his support for gay marriages. Now, bare in mind that deciding on gay marriages is a states, not federal, battle (for now, at least), and Obama’s support is simply that—his support, not a legal proclamation. Be that as it may, it woke up the elephant in the sanctuary. Loads of people jumped in with their opinions this week, some worth reading and discussing (Rachel Held Evans, Skye Jethani, Kevin DeYoung), some worth ignoring all together (Ed Young, Jr.). [Warning: Young violates Chaplain Mike's ban on the use of the word "biblical" not once, but twice; and each time uses it wrongly.]

Then there’s the Nebraska assistant football coach who may get fired for saying homosexuality is a sin. About the only thing that will save him now is a 12-0 season.

I like this Washington state pastor who wants to reclaim the word “gay” for its original meaning: Happy. Good idea.

Boxer Manny Pacquiao says studying the Bible is giving him a “shaper focus” in preparation for his next fight. His trainer told him that there’s a story of God boxing in the Bible, and Pacquiao bought it. Some people would say, “Hey, whatever gets him to read the Bible.” I say watch out for the kid’s left.

Eagle-eyed rambler JoanieD found this great video of iMonk favorite NT Wright playing Dylan. In a church. Oh my. I’d buy his album! Thanks Joanie!

Happy birthday greetings went out this week to Katherine Hepburn; Howard K. Smith; Lawrence “Yogi” Berra; Burt Bacharach; George Carlin; Steve Winwood; Mary Wells; Stevie Wonder; Brian Eno; Emmitt Smith; Henry Fonda; Pierce Brosnan; Dennis Hopper; Frank Capra; Perry Como; and Tina Fey.

I love great music. And it doesn’t get much greater than Stevie Wonder. Some of his songs would make a dead man dance. Here is one that if it doesn’t grab your heart you might need something to make you dance, dead man. Enjoy. (Sorry, AP, you’ll have to wait until next week for more 70s guitar music.)

During Eastertide on Fridays, we are reflecting on insights from Timothy Gombis’s recent book, The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God.

• • •

Tim Gombis encourages us to note the dramatic contrasts in Ephesians 3:1-13 and to see them as the key to understanding this passage.

These descriptions set forth the “paradox of Paul” that he felt compelled to discuss in this part of his epistle.

Paul draws out the paradox of his life and ministry by emphasizing both sides of the tension; he carries out his privileged and cosmically significant ministry while occupying a position of weakness and shame. Paul becomes a perfect model for how the victory of God in Christ will be performed in our lives.

St. Paul in Prison, Rembrandt

If you read Ephesians 3, you will note that verses 2-13 record a long parenthetical statement by Paul.

Verse 1 begins with the words, “For this reason…” and the apostle apparently intended to express a prayer for the Ephesians (see 3:14).

However, having introduced himself in terms of his calling to minister to the Gentiles, Paul interrupts his prayer before it even begins, takes off on a tangent, and begins explaining more about his work and current situation.

• 3:1 — “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles —”
• 3:2-13 — (tangent about Paul’s ministry)
• 3:14 — “–  For this reason…”

I like the illustration Gombis uses to explain why Paul felt it necessary to go off on this tangent.

Imagine that your pastor is on sabbatical and a church leader stands up on Sunday morning and announces a guest speaker. She begins by rehearsing the credentials of the special guest. “Mr. Smith ministered for twenty years in a church in the Midwest after earning his seminary degree. Following a three-year stint in a maximum security prison, he began an itinerant ministry, and we are delighted to have him here this morning.”

A prisoner in the pulpit! For many churches, particularly in our affluent, family-oriented, moralistic culture, having a disgraced jailbird as the public voice of the congregation on Sunday would be unacceptable, incompatible with the idea of victory and transformation in Christ.

Those who received this letter from Paul may have felt a similar sense of disorientation. The epistle starts off soaring, with sublime statements about Christ’s victorious exaltation. Jesus has conquered the powers that rule this world and keep people in bondage to sin, hostility, and death! Christ’s people have been raised up with him and seated in heavenly places! The Church now participates in God’s eternal triumph and proclaims the Good News of our King throughout the world.

And this triumphant message is being written from a stinking jail cell by a suffering apostle.

Gombis writes, “How can it be that Jesus Christ is victorious Lord, having defeated the powers and authorities, and Paul, the emissary of Jesus, is . . . in prison?” Not only is the contrast in imagery jarring, but remember this also — Paul was ministering in a world that believed one’s life status and situation reflected the favor or disfavor of the gods. If Paul’s God had proven himself triumphant over the dominant powers of the world, why then was this apostle suffering under Rome’s judgment? Could it be that the gods of Rome had proven themselves stronger? If Jesus is Lord, why was Paul Caesar’s prisoner?

Therefore, here in Eph. 3, when Paul begins to pray, identifying himself as Christ’s prisoner, his pen must have paused as the thought came to his mind: “I should reinforce my credibility to these dear people. It is well and fine to talk about ‘blessings in the heavenly places’. But here I am a prisoner, and I’m sure many of them are wondering about that. I claim to be Christ’s apostle, and yet my current circumstances certainly must not look to them like I am an apostle, walking in Christ’s victory! I had better clarify what ‘triumph’ actually looks like.”

So Paul tells us — it looks like a prisoner in a Roman jail, being used by God in all his unworthiness, weakness, and shame, to establish churches among the Gentiles simply through traveling, working with his hands, loving his neighbors and sharing God’s words with them. This simple ministry of gathering God’s people together in Jesus is creating something new that is making God’s wisdom known to all the powers in heavenly places.

Paul’s strategy is to situate his present circumstances squarely within the biblical tradition of God’s power being demonstrated in human weakness. He does this by emphasizing the paradox of his life and ministry—at the same time that he occupies this terribly shameful and utterly weak situation as a prisoner, he fulfills a cosmically crucial commission as the administrator of the grace of God. In so doing, Paul wonderfully performs the same paradox as God’s victory in Christ. Jesus Christ conquered the powers and authorities through his shameful and humiliating death on a Roman cross. Because of God’s upside-down logic, performances of God’s triumph will inevitably involve displays of God’s power through human weakness, loss, shame and humiliation.

When will we ever learn that “success” in the Gospel looks nothing like what the world calls “success”?

Perhaps it’s time to make sure there is a rugged cross mounted prominently wherever and whenever Christians gather.

Or a prison cell.