Keepers of Life

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

"When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son. 'I am about to go the way of all the earth,' he said. 'So be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, and that the LORD may keep his promise to me: "If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel." ' "

Keeping is a strange word. It's not a word we often use in our daily lives. Most of the time I think of keeping, I think of protecting something valuable, while at the same time hiding it away so it comes to no harm. This definition of keeping doesn't seem to fit what David charged his son Solomon to do. If he had, all Solomon would have needed to do was protect the word of the LORD in a safe place, which he did when he built the temple, but there's a side of this word and the meaning behind it that goes far beyond safety. I found the meaning of this word while at the Zoo, as I came to understand what the Zoo means when they call someone a keeper.

Throughout the Zoo there were signs, "Meet the Keepers."  These signs often had a time posted by them, where one could come and listen to those who've tended the animals. These Keepers were quite knowledgeable about the history, diet, habitat and habits of the creatures in their care. Some of this knowledge came from the study of books, but much of it came from the study of the animal itself; these Keepers have an experiential knowledge that goes far beyond the average wanderer. They know what its like to be around the animal without bars. They know because they've touched, fed and spent time in the presence of their ward. In most cases, they protect their wards by learning everything they can, and doing whatever is possible to protect their natural environments. They have no desire that their wards should vanish from the face of the earth through man's inattentiveness. Instead, they band together to protect what is valuable from annihilation; the animal in its natural environment.

When I consider these Keepers, I believe this is how we should keep God's Laws. It's not for us to lock them up and put them on display, but to spend time with them as they are; living in the natural everyday life. It would be a terrible tragedy that God's Law should perish from the earth, due to our inattentiveness. For it is by the fulfillment of His Law that we are set free. Yet we have spent so much time destroying natural habitats and surrounding ourselves with beautiful cages, that we forget what its like to live out God's Law. We have become the captives that are on display. We are the ones who pace in endless figure-eights, trying to get out. We are the ones lying around, waiting for someone else to feed us. Oh, that we would escape! Oh, that these breathtakingly good creatures would be restored to their homelands and live with us in peace and harmony! I long for that day!

I keep His word in my heart because I know this is His desire, that we all may be one. Without walls, without cages, without all of the trappings that drag us down and burden us. I long for the days of fresh air, wild mountain breezes and the fragrance of freedom. As I keep His word in my heart, I know I will be a part of these things. That whenever I find myself on display at a Zoo, I can come to a place of stillness, and find that peace and rest in my heart.

Expressing the Body

"In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

I once asked the world, "What is language?" I asked far and wide. I asked philosophers, scientists, missionaries, sociologists, psychologists and linguists; men from old ages, men from the current age and asked them to define what they found. For if God created the heavens and the earth, and left his fingerprints upon them, shouldn't those who've studied creation, and the marvelous capacity to speak and form words, shouldn't they know something of the divine? Shouldn't they know something of God? My journey as a scholar took about two years, yet I abandoned it when I searched for the Word in the ordinary, plainly spoken world of today. My journey as a scholar was not in vain. Only now, years later do I have the courage to return to my notes and speak of what I saw. My hope is not to quote exactly what I read, but to cast a vision of what I understood while perusing the minds of the intelligentsia.

My journey started with a German by the name of Martin Heidegger. Raised Catholic, Heidegger abandoned the road for the priesthood when he began his journey as a philosopher. Heidegger is not known for his faith, for when he left seminary he did not produce any works related to faith; it would be accurate to describe him as one who burned out, and then went on to accomplish many great things in another field. Heidegger is best known for his work Being and Time, in which he explores the question of existence. His exploration of this topic is thorough and sharp. He goes back to Ancient Greece and forward to his day, the age of the World Wars. He notes that the ancient philosophers wondered what it meant to be, how existence described what was, but could not be described itself. He notes how men abandoned the topic of existence, as many gave up the pursuit of something so common, but he pushes into existence and approaches a divine notion. Being simply is. It is what we are, but for all the things that are, there is something that is not. The Nothing. This Nothing is wholly other, entirely apart from what is. This Nothing is outside of, yet somehow visible, as we are aware that if there is, there must also be not. But this Nothing is not a negation of existence, rather it is it's own sphere of something. It is set apart. Knowable, but mysterious. It was here I found Heidegger's description of God. That we must thrust ourselves out into the existence of the Nothing [God] and embrace our anxiety of uncertainty about this something that is not at all like us. A midst all of his writings, I found a step of faith, the belief in something that is not like us, that is not like us yet we still know a grain of sand of what it is; it is enough to know and not fully describe. The search for description of Being and Nothing is a worthwhile effort, and points us in the direction of the divine.

As I considered Heidegger's words, I considered words themselves. What is language? And how is it that we speak? I asked a man by the name of Noam Chomsky, whose life long goal is to discover Universal Grammar: the set of rules that govern all parts and pieces of speech, the roots of all languages and discover the origin of man's ability to communicate with one another. He too began his journey near something biblical, for his first work was on ancient Semitic language. He also did not pursue this journey, and we would be wrong to describe him as a Christian, Catholic or even a follower of God. but in his quest for truth, he must reconcile the origin of language with man's ability to speak. It is here that he falters, and does not provide a conclusive standpoint. His science and mastery of grammatics does not provide him with a story of origin, it simply tells him that language is extremely diverse, matching an extremely diverse people that are somehow beholden to the same laws of language and particulars of expression, even though the how and why a group of speakers speak the way they do is a trail that leads into the fog of time. We simply have not produced a united story explaining language in all cultures, for some have never studied grammar; they speak because they can. It is simply enough to speak and be united with a few others in the way we speak, even though we long for the answer of origin. It is a question that those surrounded by many languages ask, "How is it that we speak so differently, but are still so similar?" We desire to know what holds us together, even though we're not entirely sure what that something is.

It was here that I asked the post-modern philosophers, the men of our age, what they thought. I asked Jacques Derrida what he thought of existence, for he had the work of Heidegger to build his theories from. Derrida did not tell me what was, only how to break down what is. To deconstruct what has been built. In his work I discovered that our highly structured existence, and the mechanical pursuit of what drives it, leads us to a place of deadening. A place of aporetics. Here Derrida describes how to live, by asking what is so important about life? How should we spend our time? He provides few answers, but does say this; many people want to know how to live, not what to live. The massive structures that govern our modernly designed lives leave something to be desired. The designed tracts from birth to grave do not give us answers. The questions of who we should be and the answers our societies give us are not enough, for they only tell us tasks, they do not give us meaning. Our hearts cry out for something more, a meaning behind all of the structured madness we find invading our thoughts, even though we do not notice that the constructs are telling us how to live. How is it that something dead should tell something alive what it means to find life?

And so I asked, "What is life? What is the natural life that give us the ability to speak?" I asked Broca and Wernicke, men who spent their lives studying the brain, for whom portions of the brain are named after; surely they know something of biological life and expression, something about the meaning behind our ability to question and the structures of our minds! Yet even here we came up short, for while we can describe regions of the brain and how language can broken up into the written, the visual and the spoken, all brains are different. Each brain processes language slightly differently yet somehow the same. The size of the brain, or shape of the head, does not even display the ability of that specific mind to process language. In other words the visuals do not tell us how vibrant or monotone the mind. For intelligence is more than any one region of the brain to process language; it is greater than these regions, even though it is limited through the regions ability to express. Brain electro-activity can be mapped within specified regions, but the mind of an individual is unlike that of any other. Each mind is unique, even though so very similar to those around it. Who can say what language will come forth from its lips? What thoughts are carried along the currents of dendrites, neurons and neurotransmitters? Who can say what truths a mind has grasped or what darkness still surrounds it? Where do we find the answers to these questions? The answer to how we can communicate with each other?

And then I discovered a Frenchmen commissioned by a Quebec university to explain how to build bridges between those who speak different languages, but inhabit similar space. A real conundrum for French speaking Canadians who live in a predominantly English speaking society. Here I found the language games, and simple rules of human interaction: that we must have something shared in order to build a foundation; that we must 'play' with our foundations in order to build likeness; and that as we develop likeness we begin to establish culture, and culture is an establishment of those who choose to play with each other. In short, we must be near and around each other in order to establish similarities, allowing us to get along and understand one another. But this is not all Jean Lyotard wrote. He lashes out against meta-narratives, stories that offer the grand picture and exclude all other stories. But he was not writing against religion, rather he was writing against technology and the exact sciences that believe they can explain all. Never-the-less his work has had a profound impact on many who believe their grand narratives have caused separation and abandonment.

 I remember listening to a student in one of my classes begin a story with Lyotard's famous words "incredulity against meta-narratives," knowing that when he would finish he would declare his atheism. Even though Lyotard railed against the grand stories that brought war and political upheaval, he was not cursing God, for God was not his concern, but rather humanity and our constructed philosophies of existence.

And so I turned to my last friend, who, like many of those listed above, gave up belief in God as he could not reconcile God to his own personal worldview. Carl Rogers, the psychologist/sociologist who coined client-centered therapy, the art of listening to others, allowing them to heal as they processed their stories. He allowed them to play, to discover and to work at their own pace. All in an era that was building the constructions that Derrida and Lyotard would rebel against. His simple belief? Everyone was in need of healing. He never described the source of health, but knew that the road to healing involved patience, allowing people to unwind. That life was not all about having the correct answers, but the ability to safely express what we think and feel, want and desire. This is the dominant model of psychology today; everyone practices some form of Rogers described, not because Roger's described it, but because Roger's was describing a part of what it means to be human: to express and to be loved despite expression. It was here I found his description of God.

These were the atheists, the burned out, the far from religious that I asked my questions to. If I were to take their divine descriptions and place them together, they would describe a God who: was knowable, even though entirely other; who had put structures together for plurality of expression, yet these languages should be familiar enough that he could still communicate with them; who put into us a desire for more than the constructions of this world; and designed our minds to be so very vast and different from each other, yet also so close and alike that no physical difference could ever separate us from each other; who understood that building communicable language requires time spent in each others presence, and that a falsely constructed world should make those who seek who seek truth angry; and finally, this being should love us, listens to us, and be patient with us, no matter what we say. I recognize these qualities in the person of Jesus. For it is not enough to have a book, which is in and of itself a construction and a dead language, but God must spend time with us. Even though he is unlike us and set apart. He must overcome the Being/Nothing barrier, even though we don't know how to overcome it. Any God that does not spend time with his people, listen to them, care for them, is no god at all, but is a construction and meta-narrative designed by men. Such a god does not deserve to be worshipped; he deserves to be thrown out onto the trash pile of dead and useless ideas. This is what so many of my atheist friends have seen; this is what so many of my atheist friends have done. They have removed the construction of god from their lives, and they have been right to do so. Even though they rejected the idea of god, they still knew something about him. And what is it that a Christian knows about God in the midst of the chaos of living?

A Christian knows that false-notions of God should be cast aside, but this doesn't mean casting aside people or entire cultures, it means finding the truth and bringing it to life. For if God created, shouldn't we all be able to see something of the creator? Even if it is a broken and shattered image? I believe this is true, as would my friends St. Patrick and Vincent Donovan. Patrick, who rejected the fifth century world of Roman constructions and Catholic culture, went to an insignificant island west of Britain called Ireland and worked with a savage and pagan people. Instead of calling them sinners and telling them how far they were from God, he explained who God was through their culture. He embracing their natural surroundings, even while leading them away from their pagan beliefs. They didn't need to be Romanized or Catholicized/Christianized to know God. And their reaction to his efforts? Four hundred years of growing faith: conversions of entire tribes, abandonment of destructive ways, and a people who reached into Europe as the fires of God were growing dim. His movement defined Christianity for many. It was based on the person of Jesus as described by the Scriptures; it did not have to be changed to impact a people, it did not have to transformed into a story of only love and acceptance without judgment, it could exist simply as it was; recognized as the living Word of God inherent in every being in His image. Donovan believed this as well. He went to the Maasai in Africa, a people so bond to each other that Western Christianity could not penetrate their unity for over a hundred years. His plan to reach them? Spending time with the tribes on their lands, preaching the Word in their language, learning how to present the gospel through their culture. For his efforts he discovered why so many had failed; no one had approached the tribes as a singular entity. When he did so he converted entire tribes, who continued to be Maasai, not Westernized Christians! He came to understand that it was not about changing the Maasai so they could meet God, but rather changing his mindset about God and how He desires us to preach his message.

And for all of my scholarly study, all of the books I read, papers I wrote and things I left undone, I could not define how I should live. I knew there was more I could study, for I had not yet begun to unravel how geography shapes language, or how language physically manifests itself in our muscles, not just our minds. For while I was and still am deeply interested in the foundations of how we speak and how our bodies communicate who we are, I knew I was lacing something. People. For in my studies I began to spend more time with thoughts and ideas than connecting with people. I had learned what I would need to do to learn another culture, but I didn't know how to take that knowledge and make it real. So I walked away from the pressure of finding an answer; I pressure I had created, and simply sought to live, even though it caused me great pain to walk away from my ideas; I was not ready to express them, nor did I know how to say what I was searching for, even though I knew it was related to Jesus.

Over the few years since I left my thesis, this search has manifested itself in my stories and my writings. I abandoned technical language because I knew it wasn't simple enough; it only spoke to a small group of people. My desire is to speak plainly, even though what I think is plain language is often indecipherable to some of the people to whom I speak. I once loved my world of books, thoughts and ideas; it was comfortable. Working with people was much more difficult. At the time I struggled to understand those different from me or their motivations, for somehow my motivations were distinct, yet strangely similar to theirs. And so I lived as an alien in an American culture not my own, and even now I do not know how to explain my culture, for I am a product of many states. Even the pursuit of this self-definition is somewhat meaningless, as it is enough to say that I exist; I am human, that should be a sufficient definition to my thoughts and desires. Although it is nice to give reason for my difference by referencing a far off place and people. The living out of my desires will change over time and come forth in various expressions, but they are all a part of the larger expression of myself and the simple truth that we are all human, even though we may not look the same, act the same, or speak the same language. Some may say that I have abandoned my culture, and perhaps the Christian God. To this I would say, "I have abandoned your expression of God, for our God is bigger than our individual expressions; he is set-apart. He is Holy. And the LORD our God is One. He is not many. He is the One upon which our creatively driven existence spins and it is okay for us to see different parts of Him, to live that life which was given to us to be a part of His expression. God loves us and desires us to come to Him through the path He created; his manifestation as Jesus. Only Jesus fits the pattern we find when searching the world for answers. Everything else is a half answer, a partial truth that bears some likeness to God, but is incomplete. And even though we seek to fully describe God, we cannot. Because God, even though he has presented himself to us in a way we can understand, and know his desire for our healing, is not like us. You do not understand Him if you fully understand Him. There is always something more to learn, something new to find. And this is one of the ways He shows He loves us, and communicates with us." There is truth to His holiness. Familiarity within the good pieces of creation, upon which we catch glimpses of Him. I have found peace with those who ask questions and say, "why" rather than "do this and then you will find contentment". For I can tell you why the world, yet I cannot describe why it is the way it is; it is a complex mathematical calculation involving numerous constants, variables and forces, while at the same time being able to be stripped down to the bare variables of earthly principles, the human body and human nature. I cannot sufficiently describe all languages and thoughts processes, even though I may be able to recognize patterns and outcomes before final conclusions are ever spoken. Humanity is too wonderfully diverse. Such is what it means to be made in the image of the creator. There is a unity in our diversity that is as perplexing as it is amazing. We are not stagnant because the creator is not stagnant. The creator is life, and so we have life. The creator is the living breathing Word, and as such we have living and breathing words. The creator expresses himself, and we should be able to express ourselves, even if all of our expressions are not easily understood.

Body of Evidence

"Then Samuel said to the people, 'It is the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your forefathers up out of Egypt. Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the LORD as to all the righteous acts performed by the LORD for you and your fathers.
After Jacob entered Egypt, they cried to the LORD for help, and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your forefathers out of Egypt and settled them in this place.
But they forgot the LORD their God; so he sold them into the hand of Sisera, the commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hands of the Philistines and the king of Moab, who fought against them. They cried out to the LORD and said, "We have sinned; we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtoreths. But now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve you. Then the LORD sent Jerub-Baal [Gideon], Barak, Jephthah and Samuel, and he delivered you from the hands of your enemies on every side, so that you lived securely." ' "

"After his suffering, he[Jesus] showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive... So when they met together, they asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them: 'It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.' "

To the scientific mind, evidence and proof come in the form of repeatable actions in front of various audiences. When we ask the Bible, "Where is your evidence for God?" we mistakenly focus on the miraculous signs and wonders; the signs and wonders were not included as evidence for the scientific mind, but rather as evidence to those who believed in the supernatural power of gods. This does not mean that the Bible lacks scientific evidence for God, for as we will discuss today the evidence is not in the physical (although there is physical evidence), but rather in the people who changed.

When we look at body-builders and power-lifters we want to know, "What's the secret to your success?" They often speak of a regimen, a diet (or lack thereof) and the disciple it takes to succeed. Very few will attribute their strength to genetics, steroids or supplements, but rather to the effort they put forward. They may give some credit to those things, but ultimately their message comes down to one thing. Effort. Building strength and mass is hard work. It's a daily effort and there is no short cut.

Occasionally, someone will claim a new workout, diet or supplement will magically create the body we've always hoped and dreamed of, but as we put the magic to the test, we discover it is of no lasting value. These workless wonders only lead to injury, disease, further discomfort and dissatisfaction. They make us believe that change is outside of our grasp or costs money to attain. True change is about consistency and practice. And no matter the discipline, consistency and practice bring about change. It is slow, but when we look back at the changes in our body that have happened over time, the transformation appears magical. We can hold up one photo of brokenness and frustration, and another of health and well being. To the casual onlooker, this change appears instantaneous, the results guaranteed. But everyone who has set out on the journey to change the shape of their body knows the journey has pitfalls, frustrations, plateaus and re-evaluations. Changing the body is difficult, but worth the effort.

I'm not simply talking about becoming a power-lifter, or losing a few pounds; I'm talking about the effort it takes to transform spirit, mind and body, and how that relates to evidence for the existence of God. We know that change takes work, it is an effort, but an effort in what direction? When we read the Bible, it is easy to get swept up in the dramatic miracles of salvation or be confused by them, but these miracles point to what is more consistent and ever present: lives dedicated to God. These lives, lived out across the centuries among various peoples and cultures, have one consistent theme, they aren't faithful to their God. This is what Samuel points out as he confronts the Israelites with their failure to follow. The evidence for God he describes is not in the miracles, but in the people who come to their rescue. These people, judges, deliver Israel from the hands of their enemies whenever the Israelites turn from worshipping the gods and goddesses of the land, and only worship the LORD.

Let's say we believe this is true, that worshipping the LORD will deliver us from the mess we find ourselves in. This doesn't explain why God uses signs and wonders to miraculously deliver. If God only delivered by the amount of effort we gave him, we might believe that our effort is what saves us; that being saved has nothing to do with God, but rather our own hard work. God steps up to the plate working signs and miracles to show his people that its not based on their effort; its based on his. The only effort required from them is getting rid of the gods and goddesses in their lives, God does the rest.

Another question we may pose, "Why doesn't God prove himself more often or more clearly?" In our verse from the Acts of the Apostles, we have this vague little line reading, "[he] gave them many convincing proofs that he was alive." How frustrating! Why doesn't it describe the science behind the proofs? Consider this, before the crucifixion Jesus performed multiple miracles demonstrating he had power from God. The one thing he didn't do, that was asked for, was show a sign from heaven. AKA make it rain fire and brimstone. Jesus refused to do this. Why? Jesus was not trying to prove himself to the masses. He was trying to convince a small group of men that God had the power to change their lives, their country and the whole world. He was not interested in changing the minds of the crowds. Why? Because the crowds were focused on freedom from their oppressors. They only wanted a God who could give them their land back. If Jesus had performed the sign from heaven, they probably would have asked him to use it on the Romans. God was not interested in nationalities, politics or who controlled what land, he was interested, and is still interested in the hearts of humanity. That's what he cares about, and that's how he goes about proving himself. He proves he can change lives by changing lives in every situation, circumstance and social circle. There is no one beyond his reach. This is the evidence the Bible presents for our consideration.

The Bible has not been written to be a proof of physical evidence for the existence of God, rather it contains proofs in the form of changed lives. It is very difficult to hold a life up to scientific scrutiny and deduce what has caused the change. But science can clearly state there has been a change. Change that is just as evident as building muscle or losing weight. It takes faith to believe in the source of change. And the ultimate test of this faith is whether or not it will change a life.

This is one of the greatest critiques against the body of Christ believers, that they have not changed, even though they have all the 'tools' to do so. They have only presented a form of ritual, a set of presentations and good intentioned philosophy that simply makes people happy and helps them cope with life. To put it plainly, there are those who claim to believe in the power of God, but have not put action to their belief. In essence they talk about change, but have not changed themselves. They are advertisers who have not even tried or used their own product. This critique is valid. The body of believers should be measured by its capacity to change, to become embodied witnesses of the power of God, not merely see-ers of the power of God. This is the kind of change present in the early church. It's the kind of change we read about in the Old Testament when people cast aside their local gods to serve the Living God. People want to know about the God who causes internal change, not the God who can cure the common cold, not the God who is our own personal medicine cabinet or sign of military victory.

The evidence of God is a changed a heart. Of a life that was frustrated, broken and shattered, but somehow restored to health and well being. Of lives that were crippled from the start, but given strength to walk when they believed. The power of God to change is not reserved for those who already believe, but for those who want to believe. For those understand what its like to try multiple methods of strengthening a body, only to meet with failure and a smaller bank account. The Good News of healing is for these people. Not the ritual performers, presenters or religious snake oilers. God is so much more than we give him credit. He has way more power than we let him demonstrate. Too often we get caught up in asking for signs and wonders, and we don't ask him to change our lives. He's much more interested in delivering us from our sick habits than raining fire from the sky. He's much more interested in how we can be his embodied and healed witnesses, than our empty attempts at self healing. He isn't trying to prove how great he is, he is trying to deliver us from ourselves.

A look into the heavens

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son... To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ... Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him- to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen."

For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you may notice that the second set of ... includes the entire book of Romans. For those of you who aren't, you will read Paul's beginning message and the final intent of his letter. Somewhere in between Paul and Amen, is some of the finest writing in the New Testament; the letter that makes a difference for so many. There is a short pamphlet often called, "The Romans Road" that highlights the key message of the gospel. When I read Romans this week, I was thinking about the Romans Road and I was looking for it. But when I read Paul's letter to the fractured church living in Rome, I didn't see it. I saw something else, something bigger, and at the same time something smaller. How could this be? It's all a matter of perspective.

As a devoted Christian, who's grown up around the Bible, I expected the Romans Road to pop out and grab me. I've been told by many its in there, and I have taken their word for it. So it came as a shock that as I read the letter from beginning to end I realized the letter was about something else entirely. A church that's been broken apart. In 49 CE the Jews were expelled from Rome, in 54 CE they began to return after the death of the emperor. Within those five years, Gentile (anyone not a Jew) Christians begun to practice their faith outside of Jewish influence. When the Jewish Christians returned, they discovered a cultural rift between them and the Gentiles, despite having the same Savior. Paul's letter is about healing that rift, affirming both Jew and Gentile. I know this because I've studied Romans.

The study of Romans, aka my scholarly lens, was not refined in a Sunday setting. It was an extracurricular activity I undertook by going to college and studying for ministry. My scholarly lens tells me facts and dates about the context of the church. Why the Jews were expelled, how the Jews practiced Christianity and how the Gentiles practiced it differently. This was not the subject of Sunday morning sermons; indeed the sermon is not the place for it, bible study is, although context should be set when we preach the Bible. When we don't preach context, we forget the Bible was not written to us. It was written to people before us, whose questions we still ask and learn from, whose mistakes we still make and whose lives, though thousands of years before us, are part of the human experience translating from generation to generation. The Bible, when we haven't studied its context can be very foreign and alien. In it's foreignness, we can forget what it is and how it has shaped those who have gone before us and those who will come after us. We can believe its a straight forward document that is easy to read and understand. This is not always the truth.

The truth is Romans makes a lot of references to Jewish culture as it was practiced in the 1st century: things like circumcision, Abraham, covenants, holidays and what foods are clean and unclean. To the unstudied eye its total nonsense. It doesn't seem like it could have any application in our world. For those who have not studied the Bible, this is an absolutely valid perspective. The Bible is not always clear. It makes references to times and places and happenings that we have to go back and lookup to understand what's being said, and then understand why the author wants those words to be said. It can be a very complex game of studying, reading, studying, reading, studying and reading.

What's the best way to understand Romans? Read the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) multiple times, study it well and then come back and read Romans. When we do this we can appreciate the genius of Paul's rhetoric. He beautifully weaves into the story the gospel now practiced by the Gentiles, while at the same time not excluding those to whom the gospel belonged before. He masterfully brings the rifted cultures together, uniting them through his study of Scripture, culture and the truth he found in Christ. It's Paul at his best. And for generations when the church is confused it turns to this letter, among others, for guidance. It's about much more than personal salvation, its about the broken church with its many perspectives. It answers the question, "How do we live together when we don't see eye to eye?" We just might need to know a thing or two about Jewish culture to see that picture, otherwise its pretty easy to miss.

When I read Paul's letter to the church in Rome this week, I read it through four lenses: the church follower, the scholar, the studied layman and as one who had never read it before. It made my head hurt! The most confused readings I had were as the church follower and the never read it before. The churchman was confused because Romans wasn't what he expected it to be, and the never read it before was confused because it didn't understand any of the cultural references. The scholar grasped why it had been written, and the studied layman understood the mastery of Paul's writing. Suffice to say I was confused, impressed, grasping its audience, wondering how it could be applied and understanding how it could be applied, all at once. I could feel my perspectives swimming in my mind. Take into consideration my age, gender, heritage, generation and current living situation and suddenly I didn't want to read it again. How could anyone ever truly make sense of this one letter? And if this letter could not be read and understood, then how could anyone even begin to approach the Bible? These were my very frustrated thoughts.

As I stepped out on to my patio, I looked at the night sky. It was cloudy and overcast, but I could remember all the stars and places and times I viewed them. When I was a counselor in Indiana, marveling at how great and vast God's creation was with a group of middle school aged campers. When I was on Mt. Rainer among other high-schoolers; we sat in silence starring at the purity of an untainted canvas. When I was in Idaho as a middle schooler, first learning about constellations and their movement throughout the seasons. What's beautiful about the night sky? It's never the same. Sometimes we can't see the stars, but that doesn't mean they are not there. Other times we can peer into the heavens, seeing galaxies, gas giants, planets, moons, comets, meteors and asteroids all with our naked eyes.

Depending where we stand on earth, the night sky looks different. The seasons change what is visible; the heavens are not stationary. They move. Sometimes the lights go out, never to return. But even though a few lights are missing, the night sky doesn't change. Humanity has looked at the same night sky for thousands of years, even though we have looked at it differently and in different seasons of our lives. We all agree the stars exist. We may not agree on their names, or the story behind them, but we cannot doubt what clearly presents itself. Too often we forget the beauty of what we see and argue about the things that won't change what's in the sky. This is how I like to look at Scripture.

When I read the Bible, I like to think of the people who've gone before. The difficulties they faced, and how they've used the Bible as a star map to safely guide themselves home. Sometimes I worry that I don't know enough about them, that I need to spend more time studying their lives to better understand mine. But when I do this, I take my eyes off the night sky. I start looking at what others have said, instead of what I see. When I take my eyes off the night sky, I forget that I have a life to live, and that my life is as important as anyone else's. That my opinions and perspectives matter, even though they change with time. We may argue about the constellations, but what's more important is to focus on the bigger picture. One we can spend our entire lives looking for and never see all of it. That's the beauty of Scripture. There is very much what's plain and obvious, and then there are the deeply intertwined truths that hold it all together. We will never completely understand the universe around us, just as we will never completely understand Scripture, but there are things we can hold on to, simple truths, that will help us navigate through the darkness.

The most important of these is love. To love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength; and to love your neighbor as yourself. This is the foundation of the gospel. The gospel that has been communicated throughout the ages, even before Christ. When I think of the church today, and of yesterday, I think it struggles with love the most. It struggles to understand love; what it means to have a God that loves us, sees us, hears us and desires to spend time with us. This is who Jesus is. The embodiment of God's love. I've gotten lost in this concept several times throughout my studies, and each time I come back to this simple truth, I am amazed at how I forgot it in the first place. It always happens because I've taken my eyes off the night sky. It's not for me to judge any of the Lord's servants, nor any other being created in his image. I can show concern for them, be worried for them, care about them deeply, but ultimately they must see the night sky for themselves. They must come to understand why it's there. It's a journey I can't take them on, even though I want to, and it's not my responsibility to do so. It's my responsibility to marvel at the night sky. It's my responsibility to love what's been created. It's my responsibility to celebrate that love through my life. And should I come to live my life that way, others will want to know and will join with me, marveling at the night sky. Amen.