Why Easter (again)

I want to re-post again a column I posted last year regarding how we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, and again invite your input pro or con.

Why again do we call it Easter? I propose a change, and even offer a couple of alternatives, one of which I have heard others use more each year.Resurrection Day is a perfectly acceptable alternative to Easter and I use it myself frequently, depending on the audience, but my preferred name for this poorly named holiday is Firstfruits. Many of the Jewish festivals have at least some fulfillment in Jesus' first coming, and the Feast of Firstfruits is no exception.

Firstfruits is a part of the Passover celebration, which is itself another column. Passover itself is the beginning of a whole week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, in which observants eat only unleavened bread and no yeast at all. The Sunday after Passover during the feast of Unleavened Bread is the Feast of Firstfruits, an originally agricultural festival when the firstfruits of the harvest were taken to the Temple (or Tabernacle) and presented to the Lord in a wave offering.It is of course no coincidence that Yeshua (that's Jesus to you) rose from the dead on the Sunday after Passover during the feast of Unleavened Bread. Unleavened bread is a symbol of purity and the absence of sin, and Jesus is the Firstfruit of the Resurrection. Believers will all be in possession of glorified bodies like the one Jesus showed off with during his appearances after his resurrection. He is the first one permanently raised from the dead. All those he raised from the dead during his earthly ministry of course died again at a later date.So there you have it. My vote is to celebrate the Feast of Firstfruits or Bikkurim, its Hebrew name, instead of calling it Easter. Easter Bunny? Can't help you there. Don't know where that weirdness came from.Have a Blessed Bikkurim!

A Very Good Question...

I reprint this column here without permission but giving credit. This was posted on a CNN site and was written by Jay Bakker and Marc Brown (as stated below) I don't necessarily agree with them completely but I think they raise an interesting point that I am starting to hear echoed in one form or another a lot lately.....

Bakker, Brown: What the hell happened to Christianity?

By Jay Bakker and Marc Brown
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Jay Bakker, son of former Praise The Lord leaders Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is minister of Revolution Church and subject of a new documentary series, "One Punk Under God," on Sundance Channel. Marc Brown is a Revolution staff member.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.

While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church.

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.

His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.

This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not.

Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.

The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."

But don't take our word for it; look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.


... They make a few good points

Now I'm saying this in Love...

It seems to me that, as dangerous as generalizations are, the Evangelical branch of the Church here in America has lost sight of it's mission in the world, and could stand to spend some time reading the Gospels from a fresh perspective. Standing up for one's values and beliefs in the face of a secular culture is admirable, but lets make sure that we are standing up for the right things. What is really more important? Letting society know that we disapprove of what they stand for and the way they live (even when scripture is clearly on our side), or showing these people the love of Christ? Is it really our primary job to make sure these people know what they are doing is wrong? It seems to me like that is the job of the Holy Spirit. Take a look at how Jesus did it. The main group of people he spent a lot of time pointing out sin to were the ones everyone acknowledged as the religious ones. It seems like we do it backwards. The ones he spent time hanging around are the ones we point fingers at and boycott. Don't get me wrong - moral standards are important, and we should never compromise our beliefs, but Jesus managed to find a perfect balance. He really did love the sinner. These days when "love the sinner but hate the sin" is mouthed, it usually means someone is about to get pounded over the head by someone else's dogma. Jesus loved, touched, spent time with, drank wine with the folks the religious leaders of the day would have nothing to do with. He loved these people, but never compromised his standards. Are we showing the love of Christ by telling someone that because they are a part of a certain lifestyle then we won't do business with them? If Nazareth's local harlot came to Jesus' carpenter shop to commission some new furniture, would he have turned her away because of her lifestyle? I'm thinking not.
It seems that the church is divided into two camps when it comes to certain issues. There are the churches who condone ( or minimize) the sin in question, and there are the churches who condemn the sin and proclaim that they love the sinner in question, but have a funny way of showing it. Scripture is pretty clear that you will know the followers of Jesus by their love, and in my humble opinion, if you have to tell someone that what you are showing them is love, then it might not be. It reminds me of when I hear someone say, "I don't mean to judge." That usually should be followed by the phrase, "but I am going to anyway."
I don't mean to be banging the table over this stuff but it has bothered me for a while. It's kind of like when I was a kid in the Baptist church, and I would read something in the Bible and wondered why we didn't believe that in the church today. I would usually get an explanation when I asked but it frequently sounded like theological double talk.

All I'm saying is that it seems like Jesus reached a lot more people doing it his way than we are by doing it ours. I am currently seeing things being done Jesus' way at the Vineyard more than I ever have anywhere else and it is very refreshing.

A New Home

Well, after a couple of months of seeking God and an even longer time of frustration and feeling like the children of Israel in the wilderness, we have officially joined the Sugarland Vineyard. I didn't realize how discontented and frustrated I had become until I heard Bert Waggoner, the Senior Pastor explaining what the Vineyard teaches about a few different topics, and realizing, "Wait a minute, that's what I've thought all along, I just didn't realize anyone else did." The main word I would use to describe what I have experienced and learned so far is Balance. You can experience the Spirit of God moving in praise and worship, but at the same time, feel free to worship however you are led to without having your name put on a list for not raising your hands.
A lot of churches will give lip service to the concept that attitudes of the heart are more important than outward observances, but then they turn around and make it known that there are certain things you should or should not be doing if you want to be really spiritual. At the Vineyard I feel free to be myself without having to wear my Church Face all the time. If I've had a hard day, I feel free to say so, instead of being afraid of the Positive Confession Police. I have had friends recently who I knew were going through something, but they thought it so important to appear to be a Strong Christian that they would just not speak to anyone for fear of people finding out they're human. I appreciate the fact that the leadership at the Vineyard is as comfortable with a systematic study of theology as they are with healing and the fact that we still hear from God today.
I do miss all of our friends at the other church, and hope they understand that we didn't intend to sneak off into the night, we've just been trying to follow where God has been leading, and most of the time we haven't known where we were going until we got there. I do pray blessings on everyone at our former home and thank the leadership there for how much we learned and grew during our time under their authority, and hope to be back to visit at some point. I still enjoy Shabbat services at Congregation Beth Messiah as often as I can, but on Sundays, look for me at the Vineyard.

Why Easter?

Why again do we call it Easter? I propose a change, and even offer a couple of alternatives, one of which I have heard others use more each year.
Resurrection Day is a perfectly acceptable alternative to Easter and I use it myself frequently, depending on the audience, but my preferred name for this poorly named holiday is Firstfruits. Many of the Jewish festivals have at least some fulfillment in Jesus' first coming, and the Feast of Firstfruits is no exception. Firstfruits is a part of the Passover celebration, which is itself another column. Passover itself is the beginning of a whole week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, in which observants eat only unleavened bread and no yeast at all. The Sunday after Passover during the feast of Unleavened Bread is the Feast of Firstfruits, an originally agricultural festival when the firstfruits of the harvest were taken to the Temple (or Tabernacle) and presented to the Lord in a wave offering.
It is of course no coincidence that Yeshua (that's Jesus to you) rose from the dead on the Sunday after Passover during the feast of Unleavened Bread. Unleavened bread is a symbol of purity and the absence of sin, and Jesus is the Firstfruit of the Resurrection. Believers will all be in possession of glorified bodies like the one Jesus showed off with during his appearances after his resurrection. He is the first one permanently raised from the dead. All those he raised from the dead during his earthly ministry of course died again at a later date.
So there you have it. My vote is to celebrate the Feast of Firstfruits or Bikkurim, its Hebrew name, instead of calling it Easter. Easter Bunny? Can't help you there. Don't know where that weirdness came from.
Have a Blessed Bikkurim!

How did I miss this?

Forgive my absence, but I feel as if I have been in the salt mines for the last few weeks, and my muse has been very quiet, but I figured the best way to write something is to start writing. Profound, huh?
I did hear something very interesting the other day that I can't believe I had missed. Apparently, at some point last year, in Israel, the Sanhedrin was re-convened for the first time since 425 A.D. (C.E) when they convened in Tiberius. The Sanhedrin is the religious high court for the Nation of Israel, and is responsible for regulating religious life in Israel. This is the court Jesus appeared before. One of the rabbinic prophecies relating to the Sanhedrin is the belief that the Messiah will appear before the Sanhedrin and be recognized. Within the first few weeks of being reassembled, they began to consider what can only be described as the 800 lb. gorilla in the corner of the room -- a new Temple. They began to look into verifying the location of the ancient Temple, which is not as simple as it might seem.
There are two main schools of thought on the location of the Temple. The concept that most people are familiar with is that the Temple is located on the same site as the Dome of the Rock. This is entirely possible, but I have read a few articles and done a little research on the other theory and it is very interesting. The other school of thought is that the Temple was located on the north end of the Temple Mount, a site that is empty except for a small cupola over a patch of exposed bedrock. The original tradition is that there were two holy spots on Mount Moriah, the spot where Abraham build the altar to sacrifice Isaac, and the site where the ram was caught in the thicket. The dome of the rock covers one of these locations, and this small cupola covers the other site. One of the most convincing facts that the Temple stood at the north end of the Temple Mount is that according to ancient accounts, the east-west centerline of the Temple passed through the Eastern Gate. The Eastern Gate that you can see today in Jerusalem was not the same one standing when the Temple was standing, but the remains of the original Eastern Gate can be seen beneath the modern one.
A scripture that sheds light on this scenario is "I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, 'Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.'" (Revelation 11:1-2 NIV) IF you were to rebuild the Temple on the north end of the Temple Mount, including all areas except the Outer Courts, you would be left with 6 meters between the Temple and the Dome of the Rock, with the Dome occupying where the Outer Courts would have been, which fits with the scripture.
You might be asking yourself - So? Whats the big deal? Won't PETA throw the mother of all hissyfits if the Jews start sacrificing animals again? (Which is exactly what the Sanhedrin is intending to do)
Well I won't touch that last question, I thought I'd just cause a little trouble. As to the other questions, though, it is important to us as Christians because it is another sign that the return of Christ is growing closer, and the time of Gentiles is nearing an end. One of the features of the Tribulation in the book of Revelation is when the Anti-Christ enters the Temple, stops the sacrifice, and proclaims himself God. For this to happen there has to be a Temple and Temple service will have to be reconstituted. Most of the other pieces are waiting in the wings. There is a Yeshiva School in Jerusalem training priests, most of the Temple articles have been crafted, from the altar tools to the High Priest's garments. The reconvening of the Sanhedrin is a major step toward these things happening very soon.
Granted, the political situation on the ground isn't necessarily conducive to the Muslims allowing the Jews to build a Temple on the Temple Mount (the Muslim religious authorities, after all have jurisdiction over the Temple Mount) but that is up to God and he can make it happen in his time, which might be very soon, and it will probably happen in a way nobody predicted.

Maranatha - come Lord quickly
but also - Sha'alu Shalom Yerushalayim - Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

Religion of Peace?

The following is an interesting account of an interaction between Rick Mathes, founder of Mission Gate Prison Ministry and a Muslim at a prison training session in Fulton, MO. In the article the gentleman is introduced as an Imam, but it was later revealed that he was just a Muslim inmate pressed into service. Whether or not it happened exactly like this, the succinct summing up of the difference between Christianity and Islam is well done.

By Rick Mathes
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.
The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked, "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"
There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."
I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat Robertson or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"
The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question! ...Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and wants you to be with me?"
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

Chuck Colson once told me something that has sustained me these 20 years of prison ministry. He said to me, "Rick, remember that the truth will prevail."
And it will!

What about though, comparing Christianity from the time of the Crusades to Islam of today? There are some fascinating parallels. According to some accounts, in Saladin's day literature, medicine, and some sciences were more valued in the Muslim world than in Europe, where much classical literature and philosophy would have been lost had it not been for the diligence of Irish monks. The Church of that time is famous for persecuting not only great thinkers, but anyone who didn't march in lockstep with the Pope. You could get killed by the Church for something as simple as possessing a Bible in any language other than Latin.
I think it is worth remembering where we as a faith have come from as we seek a way to reach the Muslim world, which is, in my mind, the foremost challenge of the Church today.

The Transmission of Christianity

Just about my favorite C.S. Lewis book is God in the Dock. It's a compilation of essays from different sources mainly on theology and ethics. I was reading one entitled "On the Transmission of Christianity" It is actually the reprint of a preface Lewis wrote to a book by B.G. Sandhurst called "How Heathen is Britain?" (London, 1946) but it sounds like it could be written today. The book is a study of a group of young men and their attitudes about God with emphasis on the impact the education system had on them.
The part that I thought was profound was this observation as to why young men of his time weren't inclined to be Christians:
If we had noticed that the young men of the present day found it harder and harder to get the right answers to sums, we should consider that this had been adequately explained the moment we discovered that schools had for some years ceased to teach arithmetic. After that discovery we should turn a deaf ear to people who offered explanations of a vaguer and larger kind - people who said that the influence of Einstein had sapped the ancestral belief in fixed numerical relations, or that gangster films had undermined the desire to get right answers, or that the evolution of consciousness was now entering on its post-arithmetical phase. When a clear and simple explanation completely covers the facts, no other explanation is in court. If the younger generation have never been told what the Christians say and never heard any arguments in defense of it, then their agnosticism or indifference is fully explained.
This simple logic cuts through all the palaver about what is wrong with the youth of today. There is no need to blame pop culture or video games for corrupting our youth if they have never been exposed to Christianity. Granted, kids should be protected from negative influences, but if they have no positive ones to begin with, then they haven't really gotten anywhere, have they? It's no wonder our society has taken the direction is has, with Christianity removed from most aspects of our public discourse and relegated to the four walls of the Church.
Our mission therefore to be salt and light requires us to be mixed up with the world, not piled up in the salt shaker.