The significance of home is that it is the place where we feel safe. When we come home, we have expectations; expectations of love, of acceptance, of support. As I meditate upon the fact that Jesus experienced the sting of rejection at home, I am not trying to see what it means for me, for that seems selfish. Why does everything have to mean something for me? Does that mean that if I find no self meaning, then the Word has no value? Can’t the word be valuable for itself, regardless of what benefit that I may take from it?
When we approach the Bible looking for a self-application, are we not saying, with the citizens of Nazareth, “the things which we heard…do also here”? Is that not just another form of treating God like a Cosmic Slave? What gave us the idea that the only reason the Word of God exists is for our self improvement, and if a particular passage does not lead to that result, we may discard its relevance to us?
I awoke this morning with the rejection by Jesus in His home-town on my mind. I did not know why, and at first, I thought that it was significant that it was not mentioned in John’s Gospel. Then I read John 1:11, and wondered if this could not be a reference by John to this same event? For was not Nazareth especially “His own home”? The people of Nazareth emphatically “received Him not.” I then thought about the feeding of the five thousand, and of the fact that this is acknowledged to be found in all of the Gospels. Other than the crucifixion itself, this is the only incident that is mentioned in all four Gospels, according to everyone that I have ever read. Yet I wonder if in a certain discrete way, Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth is not being referred to in John 1:11?
At the same time, it is natural to look at something in the Bible and think, “How do I apply this to myself.” Like the people who came to Jesus during His earthly ministry, we come out of our own sense of need. Otherwise, sometimes we don’t bother to come. Often it seems like the bible conferences that we go to seem to feed upon this tendency. I listened to a woman talk about her experience at Megafest last year basically as a communal self-release. she did not say that the conference motivated her to "take up her cross and follow...."
Some might think that I'm being perhaps too harsh. If so, I'm not trying to be, except perhaps upon myself. When I started this blog, we were running a ministry that was intended to be an evangelistic ministry to people who had not heard of Christ. That ministry folded, and we now feel purposeless, other than what we are doing for our family. That is fine for some, but Theresa and I really want to do more. Right now, though, when I ask for direction, I can't hear a thing.
Perhaps someone who stops by and reads this might have a suggestoin, a testimony, or a word of encouragement. Any or all of the above would be greatly appreciated!
1 comment:
I was looking back through old posts and comments on my blog (The Wretched of the Earth) and saw a comment you posted on my explanation of the burden of proof in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt). Basically, you said that, as I put it, beyond a reasonable doubt was such a high burden that almost no one could ever be found guilty. You also said that, as a defense attorney, all I cared about was winning and not justice. I'd like to respond (albeit late) and invite you to keep reading and commenting on my blog. Sorry it's taken me so long to see your comment.
First of all, the burden of proof in criminal cases is very high. It's the highest burden in our system for a reason: because people's life and liberty is on the line. Our founding fathers believed those stakes were so high that we should require the State to go above and beyond to prove their case. Just because the burden is high, however, does not mean it's impossible or even too high. In fact, people get rightly found guilty everyday in the courthouse. Remember, it's beyond REASONABLE doubt, not all doubt. We're not talking about any what-if. Essentially, the State has to prove their case and there should not be any reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. If there is, the tie goes to the defendant. That's because in our society we value our freedom at the highest level.
Second, I do not value winning over the truth. Perhaps some defense attorneys do, but most do not. We are a check on the incredible power of the State to accuse and incarcerate people. Our role is to require the State to prove their case; without us, the State could put someone in jail simply because they say they're guilty (not b/c they proved it).
In fact, defense attorneys usually lose. It should be that way. The State gets to decide which cases to bring and which to dismiss. If we won most of the time it would mean the State was prosecuting silly cases.
Watch out on those sweeping generalizations; they're rarely true. Thanks again for reading and feel free to come back and disagree with me. I love debate.
Post a Comment