The Mark of Easter
Considering the details of the followers of Jesus' reaction throughout the Gospels shows something really interesting, I think. In Matthew, “the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples” (28:8 [NIV]). In Luke, “they [the women] remembered his words. When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others” (24:8-9 [NIV]). In John “Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her” (20:18 [NIV]).
All of these Gospels, in other words, emphasize when the women, and namely Mary Magdalene, realized what was going on and spread the word. They were excited and joyful. Not only that, but they met Jesus. That doesn't happen in Mark. Here is how Mark most likely ends, according to the most reliable manuscripts (Mark 16:1-8 [NIV]):
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
“Don't be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' ”
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
They said nothing because they were afraid. Assumedly, the various endings that have been added to Mark over the years are correct (based on what we know from the other Gospels) and the women did break their silence fairly quickly, but Mark sees fit to end with them saying nothing. They were afraid. What is this? Isn't Easter suppose to be joyous?
Someone suggested something to me that was interesting. Mark, while we assume had no problem with the accounts of the resurrection, was emphasizing that the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection weren't the thing that was important. What was, and is, important is that He is coming again soon and that we will see Him. It won't just be a few select people thousands of years ago, we will see Jesus.
With that in mind, it seems to me, perhaps Mark has the most joyous account of all. Mark's account of the resurrection reminds us about the blessed hope we have in the future, the hope provided through Jesus' death and resurrection.
Happy Easter, everyone!
What Christian Sites Do You Visit?
I'm stumped… or maybe I'm lazy, but I can't seem to find a good site for my monthly The Navigator Christian site review. Does anyone here have some good sites to recommend (blogs, political promos, etc., excluded)? If you take a look at that link, you should be able to get a feel for what's par for the course.
But wait, there's more! If you give me a link I decide to publish a review on, you will receive credit in the article which is distributed to 700+ church members and displayed on FaithTree.com and Stpaulsefree.org. You'll be famous! Christianity Today will be knocking on your door to get your opinion on things! Rush Limbaugh will have you fill in when he is on vacation! In a matter of weeks, you'll be able to retire comfortably to a tropical island and spend your days blogging in leisure. Okay, scratch that part about being famous…
Good Friday
He was twenty-one in 1944
He was hope and he was courage on a lonely shore
Sent there by a mother with love beyond her tears
Just a young American who chose to rise above his fears
And as I watch him struggle up that hill
Without a thought of turning back
I cannot help but wonder
What did he die for?
When he died for you and me
Made the sacrifice
So that we could all be free
I believe we will answer each to heaven
For the way we spend a priceless liberty
Look inside and ask the question
What did he die for?
When he died for me
To the darkest day in A.D. 33
Came the mercy and compassion of eternity
Sent there by a Father with love beyond His tears
Blameless One, the only Son
to bear the guilt of all these years
And as I watch Him struggle up that hill
Without a thought of turning back
I cannot help but wonder
What did He die for?
When He died for you and me
Made the sacrifice
So that we could all be free
I believe we will answer each to heaven
For the way we spend a priceless liberty
Look inside and ask the question
What did he die for?
He died for freedom
He died for love
And all the things we do not pay Him back
Could never be enough
When He died for you and me
Made the sacrifice
So that we could all be free
I believe we will answer each to heaven
For the way we spend a priceless liberty
Look inside and ask the question
What did he die for?
When He died for me
—Twila Paris, What Did He Die For
A Squad of American Soldiers
A squad of American soldiers was patrolling along the Iraqi border. To their surprise, they found the badly mangled dead body of an Iraqi soldier in a ditch along side the road.
A short distance up the road, they found a badly mangled American soldier in a ditch on the other side of the road, who was still barely alive. They ran to him, cradled his blood-covered head and asked him what had happened.
“Well,” he whispered, “I was walking down this road, armed to the teeth. I came across this heavily armed Iraqi border guard. I looked him right in the eye and shouted, 'Saddam Hussein is an unprincipled, lying piece of trash!'”
“He looked me right in the eye and shouted back, 'Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and most of your Democrats are unprincipled, lying pieces of trash too!'”
“We were standing there shaking hands when the truck hit us.”
Syria and the Pax Americana
Syria is a sponsor of terrorism. Syria probably has WMD's. Syria is run by the Ba'ath party and has probably taken in members of the Iraqi Ba'ath party. Syria should not be our next military target. What could I possibly mean by that?
It's simple. With Iraq, we had justification — we had been in a previous war, or a continuing war with an intermission, with them and had UN resolutions (if not the UN itself) behind us. We had a country that we had dealt with through diplomatic means for twelve years and had gotten no where with.
That isn't the case with Syria. Frankly, we do not have the right simply to attack any country that has WMD's and doing so to another state in the middle east will create such a great hatred toward us that we likely will suffer unimaginable consequences afterwards. Attacking Syria would provoke the Muslim world into such a panic that a Jihad on a scale never before considered could come out from it. Our European allies would further distance themselves, potentially drawing the battle lines for a war to end all wars.
It concerns me, if the administration is really considering this, that we will create a doctrine of Pax Americana, as it has been dubbed. On an apocalyptic note, could the very country that has seemingly been against the UN-style of globalization be on route to the creation of a one world government? I sincerely hope not.
As Christians, especially, I think there is good reason to oppose this war. Many Muslims equate America with Christianity. As we are in, and not of, this world, should we willingly do things that will negate our chances to reach out to those who need the Gospel? This is the price we may pay, this is the price we ought to concider.
Back in February, I wondered out loud about the same potential price concerning our present conflict. Even now, I worry that increasing anti-western sentiment in the middle east may close off millions of people from the Gospel (regardless of how good the overall benefits of the operation are). However, an attack on Syria would surely cause hatred many times over that which our present conflict has and will, taking a bad situation concerning evangelism and making it worse.
The United States government should understand, in no uncertain terms, that this is not a war that those who support the Iraqi conflict will support by default. As a conservative, I've always been uneasy about our international policy — I guess I'm somewhat of an isolationist by nature. I'm not saying we should avoid other countries, in this day and age, we can't. But, we shouldn't try to appoint ourselves to the position of judge, jury, and executioner for the world.
But in my gut, I fear we will.
The Sabbath in Light of the New Covenant
Generally speaking, Christians try to follow the law, though not required, because we want to do God's will. That point is often used against the argument of sabbatarians, much like Paul's declaration not to judge any observance of Sabbaths, new moon festivals, etc. (Colossians 2:16). Still, assuming we want to do God's will (see argument 1), it would seem to me that we should set down our guard and consider the sabbatarian argument — not as a requirement or a judgment, but an earnest attempt to understand whether or not it has merit. Unless we have no interest in following God's laws willfully, then our freedom from the law is not an excuse to let this issue slide (I'm not saying one must get a particular conclusion, but that we should really consider this issue rather than just ignoring it like it so often is).
For the last few years, I've made an effort (that I have often failed) to make Sunday a day of rest. I have always followed the reasoning that Sunday is the new sabbath — the Lord's Day. However during this particular argument I started to wonder if all of this was really a fallicy. My Seventh-Day Adventist friend, who seems to enjoy a good debate as much as I do, made a really good point: there is nothing, that I know of, in the Bible that says the early Christians actually moved Sabbath observance to Sunday. They met on Sunday, yes, but there is no indication that they ended the observance of the Sabbath in doing so.
Another friend, who attends a non-sabbatarian church, solves the problem in a way that seems to closely mimic what we can infer from Acts. He observes the Sabbath, but worships on Sunday morning. The Sabbath is a day of rest, and it is the seventh day, but that isn't a prohibition on Sunday worship. The command we are considering isn't “Honor the Sabbath and worship only on this day.” In other words, this need not be an all or nothing position where if you accept the Sabbath, you must give up your existing Church and move to one that has Saturday services. All this question is, is a question concerning whether the day of rest must be on the seventh day.
One person chimed in suggesting that the ideal solution might be to observe both the Lord's Day and the Sabbath as days of rest. At first this sounded like a good idea, but wasn't this exactly what the Phari did? When unsure, they added more rules “just to be safe.” To me, this seems like a road destined for legalism, whether that is intended or not.
With that in mind, I am pondering the idea of switching to Sabbath observance. Not legalistic, mind you, but the same way I have treated Sunday for a while. I'm confused as to whether this is right or wrong, but it seems to me that only post-Biblical dogma provides rationale for having a “first day Sabbath.” If that's the case, and I want to take the fourth commandment as seriously as the rest, I guess I must confront this.
The status quo is unacceptable. It is comfortable, but if it isn't God's will, that is irrelevant. Now I must just pray that I can better understand this.
Of course, as always, I welcome the thoughts of my friends here in the blogosphere…
Friday -- Oops! -- Saturday Five
2. Who is your favorite artist/band now? That's a tough one. Right now, I guess I'd have to say Steven Curtis Chapman. However, that fluctuates with my mood. My favorite is always one of these four: Steven Curtis Chapman, Michael W. Smith, Twila Paris, or Sixpence None the Richer/Leigh Nash.
3. What's your favorite song? Well, probably God is God by Steven Curtis Chapman. If you haven't heard that song, it is really worth getting Declaration, just for it. In short, it is SCC's reaction to the story told in Through the Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot. Very powerful and moving — especially when accompanied by the music video.And the pain falls like a curtain On things I once called certain
And I have to say the words I fear the most
I just don't know And the questions without answer
Come and paralyze the dancer
So I stand here on the stage afraid to move
Afraid to fall
Oh, but fall I must,
On this truth that my life had been formed from the dust
God is God and I am not
I can only see a part
Of the picture He is painting
God is God and I am man
So I'll never understand it all
For only God is God
4. If you could play any instrument, what would it be? Not being musically inclined, any instrument would make me happy.
Seriously, probably the keyboard/piano. The electronic keyboard can pretty much sound like whatever you want, and the piano is just classy. Best of all, you get it all as a 2 for 1 value… call now! Otherwise, I'd shoot for the acoustical guitar.
5. If you could meet any musical icon (past or present), who would it be and why? Well, being a short sighted fellow, I'd probably want to meet Steven Curtis Chapman. He seems to be a really interesting person and I should think it would be nice to get to know him. If I'm willing to detach myself from my particular favorite music, I'd probably go for Handel or Mozart.
Serious Information
It seems that there was a very serious meeting called by Saddam's top doctor today. According to a communique, it went something like this:
Saddam's doctor called a meeting of all the Saddam's doubles. “Men, I've got some good news and I've got some bad news. The good news is Saddam is still alive. The bad news is… He's lost an arm.”
Now you can go ahead and give a collective groan to that. On another serious note, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information, now has his own “fan site.” I particularly suggest you take a look at the page entitled M.S.S. Throughout History, which contains key intellegence information of even higher quality than the communique I mention above.
Mr. Hatch: Stop it!
Hatch, in response to the threat that the Dems might add some stuff to a current anti-terrorism bill, is considering adding an amendment to that anti-terrorism legislation that would eliminate the sunset clause in the USA PATRIOT ACT (according to the New York Times). This will be disastrous if approved. It is a rare moment when you'll find one of my positions that more of the left agrees with than the right, but when that's the case, it shows how serious I really am.
The PATRIOT Act, is, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. It has the potential to make McCarthy look like the nicest guy in the world. The PATRIOT Act's modifications to FISA, privacy laws, and so forth, are at best, a violation of the constitution. Worse, the changes allow the DOJ to do as it pleases without anyone to report to. The department has no responsibility to let Congress or others know what it is doing with its enhanced powers — thus there is no check to avoid corruption. Remember: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Now, you are probably saying, but good 'ol John is running the DOJ right now, no worries! Well, I like Attorney General Ashcroft too, but he isn't going to be in there forever. Consider this: would any supporters of the PATRIOT Act support it if Janet Reno was going to be the one given the power? I doubt it. Scary image, isn't it? But, beyond that, even Ashcroft could abuse the power — no one, not even someone from the party I support, should be given such unilateral and secretive power.
As a conservative, it appalls me that my side of the aisle is supporting legislation that will increase the reach and power of the federal government. I support what my president said during the 2000 election, “I trust people, not government.” I want smaller Federal government, and smaller government in general.
Quite frankly, the problem with stopping terrorism is not the laws the PATRIOT Act seeks to push out of the way, it is the utter and unacceptable incompetence of the FBI. I'll talk more about that in a few weeks, and I'm not saying the FBI isn't being worked on, I'm just saying we aren't going the right direction in trying to improve our intelligence.
PLEASE, if you support the freedoms and due process guaranteed by the constitution; if you support the ability to checkout books at the library without it going on a secret government record; if you support privacy in e-mail and other electronic communications, contact your representative and senator and let them know that no matter what side of the aisle you are on the PATRIOT ACT is something that really should sunset.[/RANT MODE]
Thank-you.
