Sheep and goats and postmodernity

After a break, we're back on the "regular curriculum" for a while. Tomorrow's topic is the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25. These are good lessons. For the most part I find them quite profitable. This week, however, amidst the good stuff, the preparer of the "methodology" took a couple of potshots at postmodernity.

The first comment is overt:

There is finality here in the idea of "judgment." That Jesus means to emphasize this as "final judgment" is evident by the immediate action of the King dividing the sheep from the goats.
* How would today's "politically correct" society handle such a distinction? (The politically correct, postmodern person would deem it unfair to judge another person's thoughts or actions.)

This makes me smile.

The King divides the sheep from the goats. How would sheep (or goats) who decline to label others as either sheep or goats feel about the King applying such labels in all His wisdom and perfect knowledge? Is this the question?

Why is it that those who attempt to discredit postmodernity consistently misrepresent it? As far as I know, postmodernity says nothing about the ultimate right of God to judge humanity. It is concerned with human relationships. I don't see any of the sheep or goats assisting with the sorting process here. But maybe I'm missing something.

The second reference is more subtle but still makes me smile.

Eternal fire is prepared for the devil and his angels. How would you respond to someone who says that the devil does not exist?

Aha! Here we have the perfect response for the pesky doubters among us. Simply pull out Matthew 25:41 and give them absolute prove that, since eternal fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, their existence cannot be questioned. After all, that's where the goats are going. But only goats, right? Not people. Let's see ... no people are mentioned in this passage, right? Right. Only sheep and goats.

What's that? You say the sheep and goats represent people? So is this passage not to be taken literally? Ah, but the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels is totally literal. Beyond doubt. And can be used to prove their existence to those who have doubts.

I'll keep this in mind, but I fear that the pesky doubters I know will not be so easily convinced.

Just a couple of points that amused me, but certainly not a criticism of the lesson as a whole. Now the question is: Can I resist sharing that amusement tomorrow morning?

In all things ...

I have a "spiritual adventure" book by David Mains that talks about "God sightings" -- coincidences that seem to obviously reveal God at work in our lives. I don't use that phrase much but it certainly came to mind today.

Yesterday morning in Sunday School, we barely touched Romans 8:28. It was after the final buzzer when I brought it up and briefly mentioned a personal example of how God works for good in all things. My example was of how having an older member of my family go to prison for the last few years of his life was obviously a tragic thing, but how God has used that tragedy for good in multiple ways in my life.

That was Sunday. This morning, I was gathering up house clutter and sat down with a newspaper over a week old that had joined the clutter without being read. The headline announced that a classmate of my older daughter had been sentenced to 10 years in prison. This was a result of an accident over two years ago involving a truck, an Amish buggy, and a .24 blood-alcohol content which resulted in one death and multiple injuries. It's a sad, sad situation within the Mennonite-Amish community that packed out the courtroom for the sentencing hearing. The article indicated that there were few dry eyes in the courtroom. Tears ran down my own face as I read it.

A couple of hours later, I headed to the post office to mail out a textbook my younger daughter sold over the internet. As I chatted with the postal worker, someone came through the door behind me. I turned around to leave and there was the mother of the young man from the article. I live in a small town, but that's pretty coincidental. Our paths have crossed only two or three times since the accident. I know her because we did volunteer work together 18 years ago when our children were in grade school, but we haven't gone beyond exchanging greetings more than a dozen times since then. Yet, here she was in the post office just a couple of hours after I came across the latest news about her son.

Now, you may think me tactless, but there is absolutely no gentle way to bring up something like this and I didn't want to pretend I was unaware of this latest development, so I simply said, "Well, hi! I was just reading about you in the newspaper this morning!" She acknowledged that the family had become local "celebrities" against their druthers. I then asked some questions and mentioned my own family's experience with being on the wrong side of the law. We moved out onto the sidewalk in front of the post office and talked several minutes more. It was good to share someone else's burden. I know one of the things that helped me most during my own experience was finding people who weren't afraid to talk about it with me. There's nothing to kill a conversation like mentioning what happened at last week's prison visit. I hope and pray that offering a listening ear was a blessing to this mother like it was to me.

As we both went on our way, it occurred to me that tomorrow marks nine years since prisoner #963602 moved out of the prison walls and on to sentencing at the hands of a merciful God. I had been totally oblivious to that impending anniversary.

And yet ... "in all things God works for ... good" I can truly say that there was good along that path. How odd that I mentioned that personal history in Sunday School yesterday, that I picked up that particular piece of "old news" this morning, and that my brief visit to the post office placed me square in the path of this grieving mother almost exactly nine years after death brought my own "prison experience" to an end. It seems that I may have had a "God sighting."

Romans

It has been a while since I have posted here. We have traveled with Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph. We have interviewed some of the most influential people in church history. I have studied and prepared lessons and hung out with some absolutely wonderful people. What I haven't done is write blog entries about the experience.

Now we're ready to study Romans. Long letter. Weighty material. Romans was a Bible quizzing book for me, the enduring result of which is to give me a mental outline of the book. We have six lessons from the core of the book: chapters 5 to 8. Chapter 5 starts off with wonderful news - peace with God! We're skipping that part and diving into the sin and death problem which is offset by the righteousness and life solution in Christ Jesus.

I could spend hours and hours reading commentaries on Romans. Even the lesson material has more commentary beyond the exposition than usual. I have a brand-new unopened commentary on Romans. I have an old, musty unopened commentary on Romans. How much time do I want to spend following others through Romans? How much stuff must fill my own mind before I try to lead a discussion on Romans? Is it a hindrance or help to have tons of information stuffed into my head before going into such a discussion?

Why do I always have more questions than answers?

Mopping floors/washing feet

This week's WordAction lesson includes the passage from John 13 where Jesus washes his disciples' feet. I'm thinking about playing a snippet from the movie "Bruce Almighty" where "God" is mopping floors.

I might never have watched "Bruce Almighty" if not for Joan Ryan. I don't watch a lot of movies and this one wouldn't be likely to be among those few for several reasons.

However, I saw this article on the editorial page of my local newspaper back when the movie was still in the theaters and my interest was piqued.

Here is an excerpt, but I encourage you to read the entire column to get the full message:

When I left the movie theater, Morgan Freeman's God followed me home. I have an on-again, off-again relationship with God, mostly because the invisible thing doesn't work for me. Faith isn't my strength. I get stuck on needing proof, fully realizing that proof negates the need for faith (a twisty argument that eventually gives me a headache).

Morgan Freeman's God, however, is God as I want to imagine him. He is the parent we wanted and want to be. He speaks softly and not too much. He smiles with both amusement and affection. He is patient enough to let you make the mistakes you need to make. He never scolds. He knows everything about you -- even all your dark crabby thoughts about friends who are way thinner and less wrinkly than you are -- and still makes you feel as if He did his best work in putting all your weird little pieces together....

I almost forgot my favorite part about Morgan Freeman as God. He appears to Bruce in the guise of a janitor. He is wearing one of those jumpsuits. He has a mop and a bucket. He asks Bruce to mop with him. It is a vast empty floor, a big job for one mopper. Bruce declines in the beginning. But later, after his epiphany, Bruce picks up a mop, and he and God mop together, one narrow strip of floor at a time.

I am still captured by the image presented in that movie and how closely it fits with the God I know. I think it really does reflect the God of the Bible. I suspect that I would enjoy getting acquainted with the writer of the screenplay for that movie.

Why evangelize?

From the WordAction lesson for March 2:

But what of those who have never heard the gospel message? Though God in His wisdom, justice, and love will judge humanity according to the light they have received, that fact does not absolve us of our obligation to take the gospel message to the whole world. Not only is eternity involved, but the quality of life on earth as well. The pagans are the "whoevers" who must be given the opportunity to know the truth and accept salvation.

Absolve. Obligation. Must. These are words of duty generally directed toward those with a resistance to doing what they need to do. While I don't disagree with what the author is saying, I wouldn't bring duty into the discussion.

"But what of those who have never heard the gospel message?" Can they find their way to God? Yes, according to Romans 1:19-20. Nature gives enough witness to the existence of God and His will for mankind for people to choose the path of righteousness. Those who fail to choose that path are without excuse.

Still, why would we leave someone groping about in the dark when we have a limitless supply of light? It's not that we have a duty to spend our days wearily passing out flashlights and batteries to the endless line of people living in the dark. We have light! We have the secret of abundant life!

Do I have a duty to share my faith with people who are interested in spiritual things but haven't heard the good news of how Jesus Christ has opened up a wonderful path into a relationship with God? I suppose I do, but I don't see it in those terms.

It is difficult to share physical resources as a rich Christian in a hungry world. How do I share what I have while encouraging people to develop independence and responsibility. Where do I start in the face of such overwhelming need and limited resources to meet that need? How do I make sure my gift reaches needy people? It's easier to simply turn my face away from people who need monetary or physical help. Perhaps there is a requirement for language of duty in this area.

However, in terms of faith, why would I not want to share what I have? It's not as though there's a limited amount of light. There's no reason to hoard it. There are people all over the world -- in my immediate world, in places far and near -- who are hungry to hear words of hope. I have those words. They burst out of me when I detect that I'm talking to a receptive soul. I want to enable others to go where I cannot in order to share that message of hope.

Are we obligated to offer light and hope to those who are trying to find their way to God in the dark? Yes. Just as we are obligated to tell people planning a vacation about the marvelous time we had on our last trip to their destination. Or in the same way that we are obligated to share our most delicious dining experiences with someone looking for a good restaurant.

It seems a bit pointless to talk about duty and obligation to share something so wonderful and amazing that we want the entire world to hear about it.