THE 2011 ROYAL WEDDING SERMON FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE

This morning, I listened to one of the best straight forward wedding sermons I have ever heard. The bishop of London, Richard Chartres did the sermon splendidly for the 2011 most celebrated royal couple, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: William Arthur Philip Louis and Catherine Elizabeth. The wedding is truly a sharing of the Gospel to the whole world with presumably the largest audience ever.

‘Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.’ So said St Catherine of Siena whose festival day it is today. Marriage is intended to be a way in which man and woman help each other to become what God meant each one to be, their deepest and truest selves.

Many are full of fear for the future of the prospects of our world but the message of the celebrations in this country and far beyond its shores is the right one – this is a joyful day! It is good that people in every continent are able to share in these celebrations because this is, as every wedding day should be, a day of hope.  

In a sense every wedding is a royal wedding with the bride and the groom as king and queen of creation, making a new life together so that life can flow through them into the future.

William and Catherine, you have chosen to be married in the sight of a generous God who so loved the world that he gave himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

And in the Spirit of this generous God, husband and wife are to give themselves to each another.

A spiritual life grows as love finds its centre beyond ourselves. Faithful and committed relationships offer a door into the mystery of spiritual life in which we discover this; the more we give of self, the richer we become in soul; the more we go beyond ourselves in love, the more we become our true selves and our spiritual beauty is more fully revealed. In marriage we are seeking to bring one another into fuller life.

It is of course very hard to wean ourselves away from self-centredness. And people can dream of doing such a thing but the hope should be fulfilled it is necessary a solemn decision that, whatever the difficulties, we are committed to the way of generous love.

You have both made your decision today – ‘I will’ – and by making this new relationship, you have aligned yourselves with what we believe is the way in which life is spiritually evolving, and which will lead to a creative future for the human race.

We stand looking forward to a century which is full of promise and full of peril. Human beings are confronting the question of how to use wisely a power that has been given to us through the discoveries of the last century. We shall not be converted to the promise of the future by more knowledge, but rather by an increase of loving wisdom and reverence, for life, for the earth and for one another.

Marriage should transform, as husband and wife make one another their work of art. It is possible to transform as long as we do not harbour ambitions to reform our partner. There must be no coercion if the Spirit is to flow; each must give the other space and freedom. Chaucer, the London poet, sums it up in a pithy phrase:

‘Whan maistrie [mastery] comth, the God of Love anon, Beteth his wynges, and farewell, he is gon.’

As the reality of God has faded from so many lives in the West, there has been a corresponding inflation of expectations that personal relations alone will supply meaning and happiness in life. This is to load our partner with too great a burden. We are all incomplete: we all need the love which is secure, rather than oppressive, we need mutual forgiveness, to thrive.

As we move towards our partner in love, following the example of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is quickened within us and can increasingly fill our lives with light. This leads to a family life which offers the best conditions in which the next generation can practise and exchange those gifts which can overcome fear and division and incubate the coming world of the Spirit, whose fruits are love and joy and peace.

I pray that all of us present and the many millions watching this ceremony and sharing in your joy today, will do everything in our power to support and uphold you in your new life. And I pray that God will bless you in the way of life that you have chosen, that way which is expressed in the prayer that you have composed together in preparation for this day:

God our Father, we thank you for our families; for the love that we share and for the joy of our marriage.

In the busyness of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy.

Strengthened by our union help us to serve and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen.     

ON READING SOME GREAT BOOKS ON BIBLE AND THEOLOGY

Critical Companion to the Bible: A Literary Reference (Martin Manser, et al). Few spontaneous questions: Does the Bible really need a companion? The more difficult question, and it should serve as the heart of the book is: What does it mean to be a companion that is critical? Those who critically read the Bible is obviously critical, but those who defend the uncritical reading on the Bible are actually also critical. More practical inquiries are: Should believers approach the Bible critically or in simple obedience? What does it mean to be a critical reader of the Bible? Can we be both critical and obedient? ..... 

The Bible in Modern Culture: From Baruch Spinoza to Brevard S. Childs (Roy Harrisville and Walter Sundberg). The authors are both Lutheran scholars. They elaborate the way theologians and biblicists from Baruch Spinoza to Brevard S. Childs have been working hard to make the 'non-modern' (my own stress) Bible be relevant and modern from time to time. Cultures are diverse and changing rapidly. Will the 'non-modern' Bible survive? - my own personal question and reflection. Thanks due to Spinoza, Calvin, Luther, Baur, Bultmann, Kasemann, Childs and others who 'have helped' the Bible to be always relevant.

Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (N. T. Wright). This piece of work is a response to John Piper's The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Both authors have passion not only in the academia but also in the church. Piper writes her books from the perspective of a pastor and theologian, while Wright conventionally views himself as a biblicist. The debate, as Wright rightly places in his title of the book goes back farther than Calvin and Reformation. Justification is God's plan clarified in Paul's vision. Wright thus places the Bible itself and God himself as the foundation of justification. Everyone who desires to re-evaluate his or her understanding of JUSTIFICATION should read this book (and also the one by Piper).

ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS (LUKE 24.13-35)

My most recent piece of work has been published in Nexus, Easter 2011. The title of the article looks very heavy and academic 'THE MIRACLE OF EMMAUS: RESTORING PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL DISILLUSIONMENT TOWARDS THE RESURRECTED JESUS (LUKE 24.13-35).' The style of delivery is however light, refreshing and entertaining. It is written in Bahasa Indonesia. Nexus is a magazine published by Gereja Kristen Perjanjian Baru Fajar Pengharapan in Bandung. I have been regularly contributing essays for Nexus.  

I have posted crucial points of the article in my Facebook status earlier this week, and now  I am excited for and looking forward to share the whole story as a simple homily at Surrey Campus House for All Nations Easter Service (April 24, 2011). If you are happy to read the article, I may grant your request by making the modified version (slightly different and more developed from the one in Nexus) available for you through e-mail.

The homily gives us holistic and practical tips in order to see and to experience the risen victorious Christ in our daily life: (1) Consuming enough healthy food; (2) Having enough rest and sleep; (3) Reading, meditating and applying the Word of God zealously; (4) Managing problem wisely. Do not be overwhelmed by the magnitude of our burden; (5) Walking according to God's will. Do not be preoccupied by self ambition. HAPPY EASTER!

E. EARLE ELLIS & GERALD F. HAWTHORNE

In 2010, two giants in New Testament Studies passed away. Both are good friend one towards another. E. Earle Ellis (d. March 2, 2010) and Gerald Hawthorne (d. August 4, 2010). Hawthorne and Ellis were roommates while studying in Wheaton College more than fifty years ago. Ellis'  first monograph is a study on Paul's used of the Old Testament. Ellis last unfinished work is a commentary on 1 Corinthians for the prestigious International Critical Commentary. Hawthorne was an expert in Greek. His Word Biblical Commentary on Paul's letter to the Philippians may serve as one of the best commentaries on the Epistle. Hawthorne was a kind and humble scholar. I am reminded of several e-mail conversations with him some fifteen years ago. I will never forget for his generosity for granting me free copy of his commentary on Philippians (with his autograph on it) as a gift upon my graduation.

THE MARRIAGE IN ROMANS 7.1-6 (PART 2)

The law binds marital relationship between husband and wife. A wife of a living husband will be accused as adulteress, if she marries another man. This wife is however free to marry another man, if her husband is dead (Romans 7.3).  Paul’s logic is interestingly genius. Paul exactly knew that Torah is a perfect and spotless ‘husband.’ Paul was himself previously a devout Jew. But Paul also realized that Torah is not able to save his dying ‘wife’ who is lying down hopelessly on the ground in a deep dark valley. 

 

Since Torah is good and perfect, it cannot die. No one is authoritative to abolish and cancel the law. Jesus himself said some two thousand years ago, ‘I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law’ (Matthew 5.17-18). Who will then be able to save this dying ‘wife’? Her destiny is eternal punishment and death. The only way to save her and to transform her destiny is to break the binding marital law between her and her 'husband.' If the likelihood for the ‘husband’ to die is zero, then the ‘wife’ is the one who has to die (Romans 7.4). 

 

Who is the ‘wife’? We were the ‘wife’ of the law, but we are now the bride of Christ. Paul did not here talk of the church as the bride of Christ, but of individual Christian as the bride of Christ: what a wonderful imagery? Through the body of Christ believers in Christ are dead to the law.  Since one party is dead, the marital law is broken. The imagery is far from easy. Paul did lucidly explain in Romans 6.1-14, that the transformation from our old sinful life to our new life in Christ involves death and resurrection. 

 

The dying and hopeless ‘wife’ is now saved by and through the suffering body of Christ. The ‘wife’ is dead to her first ‘husband’ and she lives for her new ‘husband.’ Believers in Christ are dead to the law but now live for Christ (Romans 6.11). 

 

Paul continued the discussion by bringing up two crucial themes. The first theme is to contrast between the old and the new life by analyzing the ‘fruit’ of or the purpose of life. Our old life was set for death. In other words, the ultimate goal of our old life is death. The new life is different because it was set for God alone. The ultimate goal of our new life in Christ is to have eternal fellowship with God. Therefore, although both ‘husbands’ are good, holy and perfect, the ending of each story is different. The bride of the law is set for death, while the bride of Christ is set for eternal life. 

 

The second important theme points not to the final destination of our life, but to the way we live our life here and now. Those who live under the law tend to be legalistic. Thankfulness and sincerity are absent in a legalistic way of life. The dominant motives in a legalistic way of life are three: self-justification, self-centered, and self-congratulation. The new marriage requires new way of living. Believers in Christ should serve the lord in the newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter (read: legalistic way of life). Christians are called to serve God in the spirit of love and excellence. We live for God because we love God. We love God because God first loved us by reaching us out and transforming our fatal destiny into a blessed life of salvation. Paul later elaborated this new life in spirit in Romans chapter 8. 

 

What shall we say? We are redeemed and freed from our old ‘husband’ to serve as the bride of Christ. We are now secured and set for a glorious eternal life prepared by God alone.  we need to be careful however, the security of our salvation does not free us to continue live in our old legalistic way of life. We are now called to serve the lord in the newness of spirit. 

 

Lastly, the ‘divorce’ from the old ‘husband’ and the ‘remarriage’ with the new ‘husband’ are made possible only through the precious cross of Christ. Though salvation is offered to us freely by God's grace alone, it is costly. The body of Christ is literally broken and his precious blood is literally poured for us to grant us an extraordinary status as the bride of Christ. Be thankful!

THE MARRIAGE IN ROMANS 7.1-6 (PART 1)

Once upon a time, there were two good men. Both of them were men of integrity. They were spotless in their conducts and ethics. They both were healthy, smart, rich and gorgeous. They both graduated from prestigious universities with suma-cumlaude. Both of them were born and raised in loving family. These two men had wonderful positions along their career. Most importantly, both men were devoutly faithful to God. They never missed Sunday services, prayer meetings, monthly tithing and all religious duties. They were active in ministry and became examples to so many people in the church and in the market place. They were more famous than the American idols ever. Generally speaking, they were perfect in and out. Let us name these two men, one is Kola and the other is Kole.

These two men were married. Kola was married to Loka, while Kole was married to Loke. Both wives on the other hand were far from perfect. Months after the marriage was officiated in the church, Loka was depressed. Loka shared to her friends, ‘My husband is so perfect that he cannot see any defect and lacking on me.’ ‘The more I see Kola, the more I see myself being a useless and unworthy person,’ continued Loka. Kola was like someone who is on the top of a mountain, while his wife Loka was like someone who is in the deep and dark ground of a valley. The problem was that Kola had never been willing to help Loka and to struggle with his wife in growing to be a better person. Kola argued that to allow himself reaching out his wife in the dark valley is to sin of religious compromise. What Kola did from the beginning of the day to the dark of the night was simply judging and condemning  Loka's lacking and weaknesses. Kola was successful in uncovering all negative sides of Loka. Loka, who was like a pure and beautiful princess on the wedding day was now like an ugly wretch. What a horrible marriage it was. 

Kole and Loke have different story. Loke was also lack of so many good things. Her husband, Kole, however, was willing to help her to be free from her weaknesses. Kole was willing to go down and to reach Loke out in the deep dark valley, and to fight with her overcoming all challenges in reaching the top of the mountain. Loke was so grateful to have Kole as her husband. Loke felt that she has been renewed and transformed to be a better person day by day. While Loka felt to be an unworthy person before her husband, Loke felt to be a growing worthy person before her husband.

According to Romans 7.1-6, Kola is a picture of Torah, while Kole is a picture of Jesus Christ. Both Torah and Jesus Christ are good, holy, perfect and spotless (Romans 7.12). Both Torah and Jesus Christ come from God. Paul was speaking mostly to people who tied in a strong covenant with God under the Torah. Paul was explaining to them the impossibility of  solving the problem of sin through obeying Torah, because in all aspects, human beings are defect, sinful, lacking, weak and powerless. Unfortunately, Torah does nothing to help the powerless human beings to obey the law. The more we look into the requirements of the law, the more we sense the clouds of hopelessness in overcoming the problem of sin. We will not be able to fulfilling the law at any cost. But Jesus is different. Knowing that human beings are powerless and hopeless, he decided to reaching us out and transforming us from the enemies of God into the friends of God; from slaves to sin to slaves to righteousness; from a child of this world to be a child of God; from darkness into light; and from eternal death into eternal life.

What Jesus did is basically to offer himself satisfying the wrath of God by taking the punishment of our sins on the cross. Jesus severely suffered and died for us. His life on earth was not easy. Jesus was inhumanly and cruelly killed on the cross. Instead of us, Jesus hanged on the cross and died there in agony and unimaginable suffering. All of these brutal scenes are to tell us how serious the problem of sin is. God’s gracious grace however prevails. The problem of sin is so huge, but the grace of God is limitless in reaching out, lifting up, life-transforming and saving the sinful and weak human beings like us.

Now, what should we do in response to the gracious grace of God through Jesus Christ given to us who believe in him? In approaching Good Friday and Easter, I invite all of us to sincerely be thankful to God. Without the unimaginable brutal death of Jesus, we will be like Loka staying in the deep dark valley of death and hopelessness. Let us offer our most precious, personal, genuine and heartfelt thanksgiving to God alone. Romans 5.7 says, ‘Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man, someone might possibly dare to die’ – And Jesus died for us, not the righteous people, not the good people, but the ungodly, unrighteous, sinful and enemies of God (5.6).

Other practical action that we may do in response to the passage is to follow in the step of Jesus. All of us, including born again Christians tend to easily judge on so many things and people. Indeed, we cannot avoid judging in our life. Paul’s argument in Romans 7.1-6 does not forbid us from judging, but encourages us to assist and to help those whom we judge to be better persons. Unlike Kola, we need to follow Kole in going down to the deep dark valley to free Loke from her lacking and weaknesses. Are we willing to pay the price of judging others? In Paul and in Jesus, judging is not free. Now, as judging is unavoidable, helping others to be free from our judgment is doable and a must. We are called to practice emphatic with others, to struggle with others and to stand on others' shoes in overcoming all challenges and weaknesses and in climbing the mountain of grace and righteousness. We are called to help others to growing in the ability of self appreciation because God created us in his image and likeness, and Jesus died to restore and to perfect the broken image of God in us.  

In the case of Jesus, he gave his life to save our lives. ‘God is rich,’ say many modern evangelists and pastors, but he did not give us money or houses or cars or jeweleries. All of those things will do nothing to transform our eternal destiny. God gave his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the only effective, powerful, possible and authoritative agent of transforming and transporting us from eternal death to eternal life. Be thankful!

BEHIND THE CULTURE OF QUOTING ONE'S WORDS

Why does someone quote someone else? Some possible rationale are: (1) She wants to convince her audience. Her own words may considered be less persuasive; (2) She wants to support her authority to the public. Quotation on this purpose normally concurs with her personality, policy, character, decision, etc.   (3) She desires to announce to the world that she possesses knowledge on good people with good words, while others may not; (4) She is boasting to her peers: I discovered beautiful, meaningful and powerful words but you did not. I am the first: you guys are late; (5) She may lack of self-confidence. She feels more comfortable in writing others' words compared to her own words; (6) She generously wants to share with her community one's precious wisdom unknown to others? (7) She may be paid to promote and advertise the author of the quotation; (8) She is so amazed at one's words. She does not know what else to do but to quote the words.  Facebook, Twitter, blogs and Blackberry Messenger tell us the truth. You are free to find more reasons why someone quotes someone else.

Note: Feel free to replace the feminine she and her to the masculine he, his and him.

PATER NOSTER 3: OUR DAILY BREAD

Common interpretation on 'Give us each day our daily bread' has been a wide range from (1) asking God only for our basic needs to (2) showing our daily dependence on God. 'What is our today daily bread?' may serve as a more relevant question. Jesus was teaching to his disciples whose financial situation was insecure. Jesus' crowd were mostly proletar, poor and marginalized. There was no guarantee for the disciples to enjoy proper meals on daily basis. The begging for bread was offered with a sincere hope. They were truly uncertain if they could enjoy dinner later in the evening. The begging for 'our daily bread' is a survival prayer. 

Readers of this blog, I assume live in a totally different situation. Our 'daily bread' may neither be food nor water, since most of us (readers of this blog) may be able to purchase even more than a plain bread at anytime we want. As I wrote somewhere else yesterday, 'If the disciples of Jesus were middle class outdoor activities oriented people living in a four season country, a prayer for a bright nice wonderful perfect day would have been necessarily added to the Lord's prayer.' What are our survival needs today?

Thus, before we ask God for things we need, make sure that we are desperately in need of God to realize those specific needs. It is in that sense that the phrase 'our daily bread' should be understood. Can we ask God for beautiful clothes, branded shoes, laptop with most recent technology, last edition of i-phone and sparkling jeweleries? Sure we can, those things however may not be 'our daily bread' base on two reasons: (1) we may be able to afford to buy those things, and (2) we may not really need those things in order to survive. We are certainly free to ask God for anything we want, the Lord's prayer, while does not forbid, however does not encourage us to do so.

Now, I should balance my comment above. Bread (or food) is human most survival need, regardless our ability or inability to afford it. Since we may not have severe problem of obtaining our daily descent food, the request for 'our daily bread' is now transformed into an action of faith and thanksgiving. We have faith in God (and it is only him) who will provide us with our basic needs, and thus we are so thankful for his providence. Since most of us eat on daily basis, therefore the action of faith and thanksgiving should also be offered on daily basis.

'Our daily bread' thus teaches us (1) to find our survival needs; (2) to request our survival needs in our prayers; (3) to sincerely hope for God's generosity to fulfilling us with those needs; (4) to have faith that even though we are powerless, God will be able to provide those needs; (5) to thank God for providing us with those needs; and (6) to do all of those items above on daily basis. This daily spiritual exercise needs discipline, otherwise our daily prayers are no more than lips services. 'Our daily bread' shows that Christian faith is a faith that believe in the continuity not only of God's providence for us, but also a continuity of our dependence on our heavenly Father.

PATER NOSTER 2: FORGIVENESS AND PRAYER

What is the meaning of ‘forgiveness’ in the Lord’s prayer? Does God’s forgiveness upon our sins serve as a legitimization for us to approach him in prayer? Or does our willingness to forgive others serve as a justification for us to enter the sacred place of prayer? In both cases, forgiveness seems to serve as basic requirement for a correct Christian prayer. And still another question: Does ‘forgiveness’ simply say that God is perfect and we are defect? This question shows that everybody can actually approach God in prayers no matter how sinful he or she is.  Prayer is a direct communication between a defect human being and a perfect God. 

Allow me to share with you some points on this issue. The ultimate source of forgiveness of sins is God himself. It is not wrong to ask God for a brand new expensive Ferrari, a rich and generous person however can give it to us immediately. It is not wrong to ask God for As, but more reading and studying will lead us to better GPA. But forgiveness of sins is only authorized by God. As the teachers of law rightly observed, only God alone can forgive sins (Mark 2.7). Yes, we are called to forgive our spouses, children, friends and relatives, but we do not forgive their sins – only God does wash our sins away. God’s forgiveness is a different genre of forgiveness from ours. God's forgiveness is not exactly the same with our person to person forgiveness encouraged by Christian lifestyle.

Since prayer is an approach to the holy throne of God, the most important and therefore the most necessary request would naturally be forgiveness. The main possible logical reason of visiting a gas station is to buy gasoline. The logic purpose of entering a restaurant is to find food. And the logic purpose of entering the sacred place of prayer is to ask for God's forgiveness. God is the only one being able to authorize complete forgiveness, even great churches,  famous pastors and acclaimed religious leaders do not sell forgiveness. Asking for God's forgiveness shows (1) that we are defect: it is real anyway; (2) that God is perfect: no one is but him; (3) that we are in need of being transformed continuously from our broken image towards the image and likeness of God. This truth is theologically sound and essential for all believers - I confess.

The Lord's Prayer also encourages us to forgive those who sin against us. Two parables may stand behind this simple encouragement: the parable of the Two Debtors in Luke 7.41-43, and the parable of the Unmerciful Servant narrated in Matthew 18.21-35. 

Prayer is not a set of rules and requirements. Prayer is not monopolized by certain kinds of people. God welcomes all people to approach him - I think. Like prayer like forgiveness. Forgiveness is given free, generously and graciously to us: ask and you will be forgiven! Unlike the picture above, God's forgiveness is also limitless. But still why are we encouraged to forgive others? Forgiving others in the Lord's Prayer most likely is not intended to serve as requirement of obtaining God's forgiveness. Forgiving others in the Lord's prayer is most probably intended to show the overflowing response of gratefulness to the free grace of God in washing away our sins. When forgiveness were to require requirements, no one would have been forgiven. I invite you to experience prayers and forgiveness as God's gracious grace and privilege given to his children.

PATER NOSTER 1: OUR FATHER

 

Reflection on the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster) visited me once again as I listened to two sermons on the topic today. Both Matthew and Luke recorded the prayer, but in different version (Matthew 6.9-13; Luke 11.2-4). 

How far do we need to grasp the tension between the communality and the individuality of a prayer? What does ‘the use of first person plural’ signify? Is ‘our Father’ more correct than ‘my Father’? If we pursue towards and push too much over the communality aspect of the Lord’s prayer based on the use of first person plural personal pronouns (we, our, us), I am afraid that somehow we lost the privacy and intimacy of a prayer. I think God still maintains the principle of confidentiality. A prayer is indeed a sacred place where we can explore and share our most inner deepest secret and burden to God – especially when it is no longer possible to share them with even our closest companions. It is easy for us to share good news publicly, but no one seems to be happy with misery. 

On the other hand, we all know that Christians are not called to be an individualistic self-centered person. Believers are indeed a community of sharing. How do we solve the tension? Shall we focus on self or others or God in our prayers? I suggest that the relationship among the parties is fluid, dynamic and contextual. Prayer is both private and public, it is also both individual and communal. Prayer is not simply an exploration of self, but a transformation of self towards God's image and likeness. The self factor is highly appreciated, the focus of the verb however points to the growing self towards God rather than the status quo of self and ego. Yet, it is not possible to elaborate the identity of self without selves (a community). In other words, our transforming personal private prayers should positively strengthen both our self identity and our community.

SLAVES TO SIN VS. SLAVES TO RIGHTEOUSNESS (ROMANS 6.15-23)

Paul’s theological reasoning did not appeal his enemies to repent. In contrast they tirelessly tested Paul. In Romans 6.15-23, they again asked, ‘Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?’ They tried to bargain by lowering the request from ‘can we continue to live in our old sinful nature?’ to ‘Can we occasionally do sin?’ The reason behind the request is changed from ‘the magnitude of God’s grace’ to ‘since we are not under the law but under grace’ (cf. 6.1, 15). ‘Continue to sin’ seems to be more serious and fatal than ‘to sin occasionally.’ As human being we sin on daily basis anyway. Would Paul approve this request? The enemies cleverly pinpointed Paul’s own thesis on freedom the law. Paul’s strongest argument upon freedom in Christ became now a boomerang to himself. For these hypocrites, freedom from the law was understood as an ignorance of the law-lifestyle. How did the apostle Paul respond to this debate?

Paul again used day to day imagery to respond to the challenge of his enemies. He first brought up the imagery of slavery (vv.16-20). First century slavery was different from our view of 16^th-19^th Century slavery. Slavery was common in Paul’s time; it was not a negative terminology. Yet, the common rules applied: (1) slaves belonged to and worked for a master; (2) they had to obey to their master because they were already purchased; (3) a master however was responsible for the life of his or her slaves.

The adversaries thought that God’s grace freed them from the bondage of law, and they understood this freedom as a complete freedom to do anything they wanted to do, including to sin. While Paul’s enemies always argued for ‘freedom from the law’ (quoting Paul’s own statement in 6.14), Paul’s rhetoric strategy was here to consistently argue for ‘freedom from sin.’ Paul would not allow for further public misinterpretation, by stressing that his main concern in Romans 5-6 was the powerful grace of God over against the deadly problem of sin - not the law.

What new in Paul’s argument is the fact that believers were freed from one type of slavery to be in different kind of slavery. Paul argued that believers were freed from slavery to sin to be slaves to the truth and righteousness of God. Are we now free? The answer is YES and NO. We are free from the power of sin, and thus we are not free to sin. Are we now still slaves? The answer is again YES and NO. We are no longer slaves to sin, BUT WE ARE NOW SLAVES to righteousness. Indeed we are no better than slaves to the righteousness of God. We are now not free but to obey God and his all eternal truth.

Paul was here trying to deepening his thought. Believers are in fact not only transformed from old sinful nature into a new life in Christ, believers are also transported from old slavery to sin into a new kind of slavery to righteousness. These transformation and transportation processes are facilitated and made possible by external powerful agent (6.17). Believers are encouraged to be thankful to God without whom sin will continue to exercise its power.

The second imagery used by Paul is an agricultural terms ‘reaping’ and ‘fruit.’ Fruit illustrates result or impact of several actions or processes. Slavery to righteousness leads towards holiness (a process of sanctification) and eventually results in eternal life. On the other hand, slavery to sin leads towards shameful life and finally results in death and judgment. Therefore here, Paul’s discussion was way beyond the reality of our present life. Paul envisioned future eternal consequences of our present slavery. For the believers, the now freedom from sin is another slavery to righteousness. The tension between sin and righteousness exists. The future freedom of eternal life however knows no threat of sin anymore. This future eternal reality is what in Paul a complete freedom in Christ.

Thus in this passage, Paul solemnly and convincingly concluded the long battle of debate concerning the nature of God’s grace and the problem of sin. Paul’s enemies kept trying to mix the two, but Paul clearly argued that God’s grace and sin are incompatible. Each nature has its own benefit, consequences and final destination. This solid theological establishment does not give room for believers to possess and practice any permissive view towards sin. Sin is not even a distant friend to believers. We are the children of the Kingdom of God, while sin belongs to a different territory.

Paul’s logic in Romans 5 and 6 can therefore be summarized as: One, the grace of God through Jesus Christ transforms us who were sinful, weak and enemies to God to be justified and reconciled with God. Present sufferings should not shake our faith, because the most precious of God’s has been given to save our eternal destiny. The Holy Spirit is given both to seal the promise of the eternal life, and to guide believers in their earthly journey of life (5.1-11).  

Two,  we are sinners because of the of multiplying effect of Adam’s sin. We are saved because of the multiplying effect of the precious blood of Christ. The law has nothing to do with sins but to unclothe them. Even a 'little’ sin brings about deadly consequences to the whole world, but God’s grace through Christ powerfully brings about salvation to those who believe in him (Romans 5.12-21). 

Three, although God’s grace is always available, it does not mean that we can continue to live in our old sinful nature - neither are we allowed to occasionally sin. Through Christ, our old nature is transformed into new, and we should live according to this new  life in Christ. The old nature subdues us to offer parts of our body to be instruments of wickedness; the new nature commands us to offer parts of our body to be instruments of righteousness. The new life has completely different business and direction from the old one (Rom 6.1-14). 

Four, the grace of God through Christ has transported us from old slavery to sin into new slavery to righteousness. The grace of God through Christ frees us from old slavery to sin to the awaiting future complete eternal freedom in Christ. We are now no more than slaves to righteousness. Our present life is a process of sanctification, and our surely future destination is eternal life (Romans 6.15-23).

  

THE IMAGERY OF BAPTISM AND ATONEMENT IN ROMANS 6.1-14

Paul’s conviction on the superiority of grace invited his enemies to push him further. In Romans 6.1, they asked, ‘Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?’ This kind of question is an obvious mark of hypocrisy. In our day to day linguistic expression, we may ask similar stupid question such as, ‘Can we eat unhealthy and poisonous food because medicine and sophisticated medical technology are available?’ Or, 'Can we drive our vehicle without obeying the traffic rules because our life and car are both insured?'  

These enemies did not understand the nature of God’s grace. The word grace in the New Testament points to God as its single source; grace is given freely by God, and the beneficiaries are actually not deserved to receive it. Though the tsunami problems of sin find their solution in the grace of God, it is wrong to assume that Paul authorized the Romans church to continue live in their old sinful nature. Grace is possessed and activated by God only. Grace is not automatically controlled and activated by sin, as what the enemies of Paul thought (v.1).

Paul offered two different imagery to bluntly attack his adversaries. The first imagery was the picture of baptism (vv.3-4). Baptism is a public proclamation with a single purpose to announce one’s attachment, loyalty and commitment to a particular party or individual. 

In Christian tradition, baptism is a sign of commitment and loyalty to Christ.  Paul clearly stated that baptism in Christ Jesus is not to be separated from the scandal of the cross. Baptism is paralleled with the death of Jesus. Baptism into Christ means baptism into his death. Hence, death is not the end of the story. Christ is risen. This bodily transformation from the earthly Jesus into death, and to post resurrection body of Christ is the foundation of a similar transformation in the process of baptism. As the nature of Christ’s body was transformed through his death and resurrection, the nature of our lives is also transformed through baptism. I am not saying here of the ritual ceremony of baptism, rather the blended combination of God's grace and our commitment illustrated in the ritual. 

Believers in Christ are expected to live a new life according to their new nature. Through baptism, we announce that Christ is now our new master, and subsequently, we submit, commit and are loyal to Christ. To continue to live in our old sinful nature equals to denial of (1) our new nature in Christ; (2) our made to public-commitment to Christ; (3) the lordship of Christ over our life. Thus, a commitment to be Christ’s followers proclaimed in the ritual of baptism is a combination of God’s initial grace and our sincere commitment to him as a response towards that amazing grace.

Paul’s second imagery explores the picture of atonement (vv.5-10). Atonement is an English word consists of three parts AT-ONE-MENT; the word explains the process of how the holy righteous God can be at one with broken and sinful human being. In other words, atonement is a detailed explanation of the reconciliation process. To narrow down our discussion, the word atonement asks, ‘How could the death of Jesus bring reconciliation between God and human being?’ In the Old Testament, the word atonement is inseparable from the idea of blood. Old Testament atonement points to ‘mercy seat’ or literally the ‘location of grace’ – a place where priests sprinkle the sacrificial blood of reconciliation. The mercy seat is the top part of the Ark of the Covenant; it is made of pure gold and is located in the Sanctum Sanctorium of the temple.  

Five main theories at least have been established in order to elaborate the possibility: (1) the blood of Jesus brings  about positive energy to enable and empower people to come, repent and believe in him; (2) the blood of Jesus is a form of payment God paid to a different party, namely the owner of our old life (i.e. Satan or the power of sin?). We are now purchased by God and consequently now belong to God; (3) the blood of Jesus is a victorious sign of truth over against the power of sin. When the power of sin is defeated on the cross, the way for reconciliation is open and possible; (4) the blood of Jesus satisfies the wrath of God. Jesus took our place on the cross to free us from eternal punishment; (5) the blood of Jesus is a form of payment made to God. Sin is here understood as debt to God. Each theory contains partial truth and is subject for further discussion. Some of the theories are in fact complementary.

The results of the atonement are (1) believers are now united (reconciled) with Christ; and (2) believers are transformed into a new nature and belong to a new master. Before unpacking his concluding argument, Paul lucidly and firmly stated the fact that the death of Christ is not reversible (vv.9-10). The statement serves as a smooth transition to Paul’s moral exhortation. As Christ died and now is risen, believers now live no longer an old, but a new life in Christ. The irreversibility of the cross should accordingly have irreversible transformation in the lives of the believers. 

Since believers are now God’s through baptism and the process of atonement, therefore, Paul now was authorized to command: (1) Do not let sin rule your body; and (2) Do not offer your body as instrument of wickedness, but offer your body as instrument of righteousness. We have no business with sin any longer, because we now live in the new sphere of the gracious grace of God (6.14).

ADAM AND CHRIST IN ROMANS 5.12-21

Romans chapters five and six are a coherent unit in which Paul exposed the serious and mountainous problem of sin and the generous wonderful grace of God. It begins with PAUL'S LOGIC OF SUFFERING AND RECONCILIATION IN ROMANS 5.1-11 (Read my post on February 5, 2011). It is then followed by three  basic and fundamental conversations between Paul and his ‘enemies.' I group these enemies as legalistic and moralist (they were straightforwardly hypocrites).

The very first conversation recorded in Romans 5.12-21 exposes the reality of sin owned automatically by all human beings. While the enemies argued that sin is sin because of the existence of a legal law, Paul argued that sin is sin because it is sin. Since Adam sinned against God, all of his descendants sinned, including those who lived before the law was given. The law simply approved the sinful nature of all human being. Saint Augustine rightly developed the doctrine of original sin from this passage.

One man sinned, all men and women sinned. One man sinned; more than six billion men and women now sinned (please notice my consistent use of past tense). All readers of this post sinned! We all sinned. We do not potentially sin; we are not potentially sinful. We were sinners and did sin. Adam might not think that the consequence of his ‘little’ bite of the forbidden fruit will damage the whole history of human race. That ‘little’ sin indeed did.

This fallen world is however not hopeless. Though sin leads to condemnation and death, God’s gracious grace brings life. Paul intentionally contrasted Adam and Christ. Both figures caused multiple effects, but to different direction. Adam was only an individual, but his individual sin has been continuing to multiply until this hour. Jesus was also only an individual, but his  individual obedience  and faithfulness to die on the cross solves the multiplying monstrous problem of sin.

I invite you to consider some practical applications of this narrative. First, no matter how small a sin is, sin is always serious and its consequence is always deadly. Almost everybody does self-conversation to self-convincing that the sin he or she about to do is small and not too serious. That self convincing-conversation however directs to a fatal deadly destination. Adam might do the same, but he miscalculated the consequences. Should Adam realize the devastating impact of his disobedience he would not have taken the fruit.  

Second, though the problem of sin is huge and tsunanimous, God’s grace through Jesus Christ is enough to provide the (only) solution. The grace of God is free and available. While sin brings condemnation and death, the grace of God through Christ justifies, reconciles and saves those who believe in him. Though sin is intrinsically and internally implanted in our being, God who is eternal, righteous and loving powerfully restores his image and likeness in us.

Third, sin is sin although no law exists; sin is sin although no one sees; sin is sin although no complain is heard. All have sinned, said Paul, because Adam sinned. In Paul’s hypothesis, Torah was simply to approve the sinful nature and sinful behavior of human being. Torah had nothing to do with sin but to unclothe our inner shame and weaknesses.

Fourth, in verse 17, Paul clearly contrasted a life reigned by death over against a life reigned by righteousness. Our new life is a life ruled by righteousness. We are now free from the bondage of sin. We however are commanded to live a righteous life not because the law requires us to do so, but because our new sphere of life belongs now to God who is righteous. This is a theme that Paul would carry out in chapter six - and hopefully I will be able to discuss in the next two posts.

ECCLESIA

• People expect to see the tower of Eiffel in Paris, Sears and John Hancock towers in Chicago, Liberty statue in New York, CN Tower in Toronto, the Golden Gate in San Francisco, canyons in Arizona, der Brandenburger Tor in Berlin, and the Big Ben in London. Postcards sold in souvenir shops tell tourists what to expect when they visit those cities. Postcards also keep memories of the visited cities alive. 
•  
• What do we expect from church? What do ‘postcards’ tell us about church? What does church promise us to deliver? Inspired by John Kennedy’s inaugural speech in 1961 (‘Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country’) some good believers may comment: ‘We are called to contribute for rather than to benefit from church.’ While there is truth behind the statement, the question of ‘Does church deliver what she should deliver?’ is still legitimate. 
•  
• What are the ideal roles of church in this world? Does church bind up the wounds of this world – or does she add pain to this already broken world? Since nobody is perfect and subsequently no church is perfect, we thus should not speak on the level of ideal. In reality, do most people still look for and attract to church?  Are most people still respectful towards church? I am afraid there are indeed more people who maintain sceptical attitudes towards church. 
•  
• As what postcards do, what memories do we have in regard of church? Do we store happy and positive, or negative and painful memories concerning church? Memories are important, but they belong to the past. What most postcards do not deliver is to tell about the future. What do we envision about church? Our attitudes towards church are actually established more on the process of envisioning her future ideal roles rather than simply appreciating (or condemning) memories of the past. 
•  
• This reflection asks so many questions. The questions are however necessary since all believers are responsible to provide the answers to those questions: both verbally, and more importantly through living testimonies. Paul called us members of (the body of) Christ (1 Cor 6.15; cf. Rom 12.5) and the body of Christ (1 Cor 12.27; cf. Eph 4.1-16). We are the body of Christ, the church, and Christ is the head (Eph 4.15). When we do not deliver what we should deliver, why we are and what we do as members of that precious body are in question.   

REJOICE IN THE LORD ALWAYS!

• Today twice I listened to a refreshing sermon delivered by a good friend of mine, Rev. Gagan Gunawidjaja, in which he dug Luke 10.17-20 out, and pointed to three rationale why believers should always be rejoicing. If I misunderstood him not, the first reason is related to the phrase 'in the name of Jesus' (v.17) which he understands as 'for the sake of the glory of Jesus' (concurring with John Piper). Joy is not poured in but flowing out. Rejoicing places God as the focus rather than self.  The second ground for always be rejoicing is Immanuel. God is always with us, especially in protecting us from things/powers that may harm us (vv.19). We may forget to pray for God's protection, but never God leave us alone. Finally and the third foundation to rejoice in the lord is the security of our salvation. The grace of God is so huge and powerful in saving the wretch like us. Our names are now written in heaven, and no authorities are authorized to erase those names (v.20). This amazing grace gives no space for us not to be rejoicing.  To be honest with you, I am so blessed and excited for the sermon.

• As I was reflecting on the sermon, I realized that the Bible is aware of the discrepancies between the ideal and the vulnerability of life. Based on the rationale above, the rejoicing attitude should indeed be automatically overflowing in and through our lives. However, the Bible COMMANDS us to 'Be Joyful always!' (1 Thessalonians 5.16) and to 'Rejoice in the lord always!' (Philippians 4.4). Those kinds of biblical command suggest that rejoicing attitude may not be effortless. On one hand, the attitude should naturally, genuinely and honestly spring out of our rejoicing heart. On the other hand we are called to discipline our hearts and like Paul, to command  them to rejoice in the lord always.

FORGIVENESS: YES - REVENGE: NO (LUKE 9.51-56)

• The leaders of the Samaritan village refused to welcome Jesus (9.53). If we were disciples of Jesus and were there, we might like the sons of thunder become so upset. The refusal created emotional pain among the twelve, leading towards negative feeling. John, James and their fellows were burnt by the spirit of vengeance. The disciples of Jesus felt uneasy with such a harsh rejection. Their pride was hurt. For John and James, the attitude of the Samaritans was absolutely unacceptable. Who were the Samaritans? Were they better than Jews? Why did the Samaritans reject Jesus the king and the Messiah? Many more questions were actually active in the mind of the twelve, motivated by prejudice. Allow me to apply my imagination to approach the prime message of the passage.

• For us who are now believers of Jesus Christ, allow me to humbly ask this question, 'How many times had we refused to welcome Jesus before eventually we decided to follow him wholeheartedly?' Do we realize that in the past we were indeed like the leaders of that Samaritan village? Those who now welcome Jesus were in the past probably refused him. Those who now refuse Jesus may indeed in the future open to him. There is no proper reason for us to show hatred and to take any revenge towards those who stand against Jesus. Jesus had died for them too: he loves them and now is patiently waiting for them to return. Remember that Christ had died for us while we were still weak, sinners and enemies of him (Rom 5.1-11).

• To us, followers of Jesus, I ask another equally significant question, 'How many times have we been refusing to obey God? Christians belong to no one but Jesus. Sadly often we fail to welcome Jesus to reign over our lives. Rev 3.20 reminds us again and again that Jesus is now waiting in front of the door and knocking our hearts. Will we open that door widely for Jesus and allow him to rule over our lives? Many times we permanently lock that door, and in this case, again we are not different from the Samaritan leaders of the village. Luckily enough Jesus does not call fire from heaven to consume us.Though Jesus had died for us and washed our sins away, he never give up with our stubbornness. His love is eternal and his forgiveness is always available.

• We like John, James and the rest of the disciples are often tempted to judge and condemn other people based on their lacking and weaknesses, without realizing that (1) we were and probably are no different from those people; (2) those who are now in opposition against God may be God’s best friends sometimes in the future; (3) Jesus loves all people with their inherent weaknesses and lacking – including those who refuse to welcome him. The passage reminds us that judgment belongs to God alone. Our duty is not to revenge, but to forgive.

THE UNSEEN BEAUTY OF MOVING BACKWARD (LUKE 9.51-56)

• Few days ago in one of Surrey parks, Keiko and I saw a truck moving backward collecting garbage. She asked me a simple question, ‘Dad, why is that garbage truck moving backward?’ I did not think too long to respond to her question, ‘The truck is moving backward, so it can leave the playground by moving forward without necessarily making a turn; the size of the track is too narrow for the truck to make a turn.’ Our situations are often similar to the above illustration. Our track often limits us from always moving forward. The space is often too narrow for us to make a turn. There are times when we need to retreat. It sounds awful, but it helps us to move forward better in the future.

• Instead of forcing the leaders of the Samaritan village to open the gate for the group, Jesus decided to make a detour (9. 56). Jesus did move backward. Jesus was willing to give up his original arrangement for different village. Jesus however did not change his commitment for Jerusalem. In our modern expression, mission is not changeable, but strategy is. When one methodology is locked, mission often is not successfully accomplished. Flexibility is always smart. Yielding is therefore not always discouraging. In the case of this narrative, Jesus was willing to submit to the local human authority, and it avoided unnecessary conflicts between Jesus, his disciples and the Samaritans. Moving forward against strong opposition will often result not in success but in destruction. When our way is blocked, God may want to show us: (1) a better way (we might not be able to see) to achieve the goal; (2) a broader and more holistic picture of God’s mission (we often tend to be too narrow on this issue); (3) that we need a rest to regain energy to fulfilling God’s calling well.

• Jesus here was practicing a humble leadership. Although he could, Jesus did not exercise his authority as the Son of God to destroy the village (9.54-55). Leadership and authority are for Jesus servant hood and humility. When the leaders of the village refused to welcome Jesus (9.53), he simply accepted the rejection. Jesus knew the village belonged to a community different from his. Contrast to the attitude of John and James (9.54), Jesus respected the decision made by the village leadership. Though Jesus himself was the standard of righteousness (since he himself is God), he appreciated differences. Pride and intolerant are characters foreign to Jesus. A step to retreat is not always a foolish decision to make; often it shows manners, politeness and humility. Retreat is thus a time to remember that (1) we are here for God, because of God and with God; (2) God’s way is different from ours, and his wisdom is higher than our wisdom. An act of retreat, especially in Luke 9.51-56 does also serve as an exemplary character and moral of a total humility not only before God, but also before men (and women) of this world.