Crossroads At the Day of Bapticost
Page 2
times, the Jesus in this story is my own voice preaching to myself… we’ve all done that at times: preached to ourselves. In formal arbitration, a mediator provides a way to relay a message from one party to another, “to explain what the other guy actually thinks.” Jesus is like a mediator in this way, not just between us and God, but, in this story, a mediator between each other to help bring unity. Respect should assume that the intelligent reader would never think that using Jesus as a character could ever imply a “thus says the Lord” attitude of the author. It should go without saying, but, I’ve seen enough in the Body of Christ to know that we often need to say what shouldn’t need to be said.
Fourth, I am a Bible student and have continued to be since my days at Moody. I have evaluated and searched and “re-searched” the Scriptures for answers to the tough questions. This book contains some of the conclusions that could help resolve some conflict in the Body of Christ. But I wrote this work as a conversation script because most people don’t want to read a Sys-Theo lecture. “Knowing God” is for everyone and a simple conversation is something we Christians can have with each other… hopefully. But this is more than just a banter form of “the blind leading the stupid” as my father always said. Theological drafts have been written for each idea presented in this book and are available on my homepage (Reconciled Church Foundations.) Were it not for this due diligence, I would not include these concepts in a published work.
Fifth, with the non-Jesus characters being clearly in one camp or the other on some issues, but clearly not on other issues, the reader has permission to consider the matter from a comfortable and respectable distance—without feeling labeled. Even in Jesus’ conversation with, say, an Evangelical, a reader who is not himself an Evangelical may appreciate the script as he understands that Evangelical’s perspective… almost like having a conversation. He can also watch Jesus say what he always wanted to say himself as well as understand the Evangelical perspective more accurately. The same is true of a different camp. But the reader should not interpret any character as a generalization of all people in any one group. These characters are consolidations of more pressing discussions in the Body of Christ, not an attempt to lump us all into only a few groups. I will say, however, that in the scripts where Jesus converses with both of the other characters, the difference between the personalities has been heavily informed by close friends in my own life. Some of the content reflects specific people I know while other parts reflect the personalities of an entire sub-culture within the Body of Christ. Still, every character in the script, including the Jesus character, is a composite of some form or another.
Sixth, there is a method behind the topics I selected… and deselected. I have directly avoided differences between Amish/Mennonites and conventional American Protestants as well as Roman Catholic differences. Not only are the differences between those camps around five hundred years old and much deeper than can be reconciled with a simple arbitrator, we also hold those differences with more respect even in our strong disagreements. I’m targeting the “enflamed-ignorant” debates. Nearly all Protestants have had dealings with the Amish in business or friendship. Lunchtime between a Catholic and Lutheran in the staff lounge rarely turns ugly. With the exception of Calvinism and Arminianism, it seems that the more venomous differences between American Protestants have only developed in the last century. There is also a flavor of “Academic” Christians vs. “Live-and-be” Christians. Though each character in this book seems to belong to a certain denominational group, it is merely a literary device that was convenient. All of us know that both types of people exist within the several different denominations. Some topics are not introduced “formally,” but I borrow jargon from such discussions and slip them into the dialogue under the radar so that theologically-savvy readers will know what is being referenced while those in the laity who don’t care—and don’t need to—aren’t pulled into fights they don’t have prior knowledge of. This is in the best interest of both Christian unity and academic respect for the subject matter.
Seventh, the characters are a bit “slow” to learn some of the points taught in the book. This will reach a broad reader base by addressing various aspects and specific phrases that different people in the Body of Christ may have blocking their way to understanding. It also aims to be “slower on the uptake” than most every reader. This way, readers may grasp the point before the character does, and, even though the reader may just be learning the same concept, he may begin yelling at the character in the story, telling the character to hurry up and learn the same thing he himself just learned. This helps a reader to get a thorough grasp on a concept.
Eighth, no one is perfect, myself most of all, but credit must be given to the fact that ideas are more interesting if the author writes from his lifestyle and not just a theory. These ideas come from living and studying Bible—both. I have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours mentoring young people and helping friends sort-through challenges in, not just the topics presented in this book, but many things in life. While the ideas I’ve developed over the last decade were based in reality and experience, they also serve the purpose of helping our realities. Once we get some of our differences sorted-out, other things in life will begin to come together for us as a natural result. Life experience and Bible study continually spiral between each other. Bible study is most effective when we are living life and we study the Bible so that we can be more effective in living.
Ninth, I’ve kept things broad. We often get into trouble when we use a microscope to parse things that must be measured in light years. The scientific community uses the term “significant figures,” where the calculation of the outcome must not be more detailed than the ability for the equipment to measure. For instance, if you measure the average speed of your car, consider how crude the speedometer is: increments of 5MPH. Even if, after crunching some numbers, the number on your calculator says 64.8967301, your speedometer only shows 60 and 65, so your conclusion must be 65 for that experiment. Many of our debates get technical in calculations measured by crude equipment. In those cases, unity may be found, merely in “rounding” to the technicality of the equipment God gave us. It may seem as if this shows no respect for details, but, details can be measured ever-infinitely smaller. Every tool of measurement must accept a certain level of “slop” by definition. As Christians, we ought to make that “acceptable slop” factor equal to the technicality in God’s commands and not parse things His Word does not. Concerning some such issues, we may be divided over things for which God’s Word holds no opinion. Unity, in such regards, may be found in conforming our non-opinions to the non-opinion of His Word on issues where His Word holds no opinion. Many times, a news reporter asks a celebrity for an opinion on an issue that the celebrity isn’t involved with. In those situations, a wise celebrity will say, “I don’t have an opinion about that.” Even though it’s tempting and even though the news reporter may not like that answer—because it doesn’t sell well in headlines—we may want to follow the wisdom in refusing to opine where we would only be speculating.
Some more recent publications which have invited opened discussion to ideas that question the basis for Christian faith and, by way of unnecessary “what ifs,” have led people away from the redemptive work of the Cross. I genuinely believe that some of those books have been written with good intent from their authors. Nonetheless, if an author is going to ask readers to reconsider some of their core beliefs, that author owes it to the wider Christian community to make his beliefs available for those with questions. For articles to that effect and other writings aimed at bridging the “Bapticostal” gap, go to faith.jessesteele.com. You might look for the article “Reconciled Church Foundations” which specifically targets ideas more relating to this book.
I truly believe that reconciliation is possible, however, we all know that the journey may be a little bumpy. In that process we need clarity, communication, sober alertness to rogue ideas that may seek to game the inevitable tra
nsition, and the constant reminder that our goal is unity. We are a team. Unity is coming.
Scene 1: I Met Jesus Before I Got to Class
Jesus: Hello.
Carl: Who are You?
Jesus: I’m Jesus?
Carl: Oh, and I’m Frankenstein.
Jesus: Hi, Frankenstein.
Carl: Frankenstein isn’t my name.
Jesus: Why did you say it was your name?
Carl: You said Your name is Jesus.
Jesus: That’s because my name is Jesus. I’ve been called by other names, and many other things have been called by my name, but I knew your name wasn’t Frankenstein.
Carl: Ooo. Sharp! How did You ever figure that out, “genius?”
Jesus: No, it’s “Jesus.” I’ve always known your name, Carl.
Carl: How did You know my name?
Jesus: Do you really want to go through this again?
Carl: No, You’re just going to tell me that You’re Jesus, so You know everything.
Jesus: Now you’re getting to know me. It takes a while, but you’ll get used to me.
Carl: Did Your mother ever get used to You?
Jesus: Not quite. But she sure