This afternoon I had lunch with Amos N. Guiora, professor of Law at J.S. Quinney Law School, University of Utah, and fellow Ann Arbor, Michigan native. We discussed his new book Freedom From Religion: Rights and National security. I must say Guiora speaks with a candidness that is both provocative and disturbing. In his book he addressed the issue of Religious Extremism.

In his view extremism emerges when a "doctrine of certitude" is disseminated throughout a religious body by religious leaders who use it to promote a narrow and violent stream of the religion.

This extremism can be seen in I. Beliefs - Which he argues can't be changed II. Conduct - Which shouldn't be changed and III. Speech - which he argues must be censured.

The of proposition of censure is surprising coming from Guiora. The First amendment is something of a sacred cow in constitutional law. So how does a law professor get to this point?

Today he laid out his case clearly. Religious terminology is full of deep and nuanced language. Often a religious leader can say something that is coded and dangerous. Guiora gave the example of a Fatwah as something that is not a direct order for assassination, but is interpreted as that by some in the audience.

We also discussed many of the ways that internal censure has failed. He gave the institutionalized statutory rape of the FLDS, and their practice of abandoning teen boys in Salt Lake City as one example. I must confess these are topics I know little to nothing about. He also spoke about honor killings within Muslim families, the "lost boys of Minneapolis", the prayers for Obama's Death by some, and the role of Radical Judaism in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

I agree with Guiora that there may be some sort of censure of extremism required, and I do realize that internal moderation has not and will not be effective. BUT I'm not sure his means are a good solution. I don't think we should ever put censure in the hands of the state.

Guiora argues that we should expand the definition of a "clear and present danger" established by Schenck v. United States. Thus the State would means by which extremism is defined by each society.

Guiora believes this is necessary because "the greatest threat to civilized society is religious extremism." I would argue that this may just put the government itself in a position where they become the most clear and present danger.

It's a difficult issue, and we haven't even begun to talk about what this sort of legislation would to to religious communities. There is already too much of a strong human tendency to marginalized those seen as "the Other." I believe this idea may cause much more injustace then it prevents.... What do you think?

John 3:3-8 (English Standard Version)
³ Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." ⁴ Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" ⁵ Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷ Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' ⁸ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

The idea of Christian rebirth is found most frequently in the Gospel of John. It is from John that we get the idea of being "Born Again." In fact out of the 6 occurrences of the Greek word gennan (the term that John uses to describe rebirth from God) in John FIVE of them occur in the short passage above. So what does it mean?

Jesus uses 5 parallel sayings to refer to this one idea:

“born from above“ in 3:3
“born from water and Spirit“ in 3:5
“born from the Spirit“ in 3:6
“born from above“ in 3:7
“born from the Spirit“ in 3:8

Out of these Five sayings one of them doesn't fit as neatly...
Can you guess which one?

If you said “born from water and Spirit“ in 3:5 you are right!

Born of spirit fits pretty well. Most people will explain it as some form of the life of God [however whether that is the Holy Spirit, God in essence (John 4:24), the words of Jesus (John 6:63), or simply the life of a Child of God is still debated].

The real problem in understanding this passage comes with trying to grasp what John was talking about when he said "Bord from water." My whole life I have heard this passage explained in so many different ways I didn't know what to do with it. Perhaps you've heard a few of them yourself:

1) Water is being contrasted negatively with Spirit. John the Baptist baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Spirit. Another hallmark of this view is a removal of the parallelism in this section. However suggestion fails to notice the fact that “water and Spirit” are governed by one preposition and must be viewed as referring to one entity.

2) Water is a reference to the baptism of John, and it's a good thing. My question in this understanding is: why would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he needed to enlist in the followers of John the Baptist? Another question that may be even more important is: why would the the writer of John give such emphasis on John's baptism?

3) Water refers to Christian baptism. For this to be the case the passage would have to be anachronistic, which is not out of the question. I have to say i am skeptical of this idea though. The Gospel keeps separate that which is pre-resurrection and that which is post-resurrection (e. g., 2:21-22 and 7:39). Also note that the author does not make baptism a prerequisite for entering the kingdom or having eternal life at any other point.

4) Water is to be understood of physical birth. I've heard this one a few times. It means one should be born physically (through semen and/or amniotic fluid) and spiritually. This makes the verse a parallel to the verse that follows, but is a little weird.

5) The passage is using the water to indicate semen like above HOWEVER it's not a physical seed but a “spiritual seed.”

6) “Water and Spirit” is a hendiadys. John “pairs in tension” frequently. In these pairs the word "And" (kai in greek) indicates the first word or concept is additional explanation or explanatory material which describes the second word of concept which is the more important one. In this structure the second word is seminal and defines and explains the first. In this view John does not mean anything different with “water and Spirit” than he means with “Spirit” in 3:6 and 8. Interestingly enough the Hebrew Bible and Judaism associate “water” and “Spirit” in describing the life-giving work of God. (See Isa 32:15; 44:3; 59:19; Ezek 36:25-27; Zech 12:10; 1QS 3:7-9; 4:21; 1QH 16:12. See also 1 Cor 12:13 and Titus 3:5.)

So what do you think? Which of these 6 ideas makes the most sense to you?

//special thanks to Klyne Snodgrass who put a great deal of this information together...

As long time readers know John 1:1-18 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible; it also one of the hardest passages in the Bible for scholars to figure out. John in General is very difficult to figure out (much of the scholarship for the last few centuries has been turned on it head for one reason or another)…

This passage is often called the “prologue of John.” Some scholars once theorized that this section was a Hymn inserted based on the uniqueness of certain terms (logos and grace in the prologue that appear nowhere else in the Book). This idea doesn’t take into account much of the significance of this passage to the whole. The prologue in John sets the stage for the rest of the book. It shows the areas of focus John takes in Gospel: A) Jesus’ Divine role, and B) the authority of those who believe in God.

Alan Culpepper (“The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” New Testament Studies 27, 1980, 1-31) believes that the prologue is a chiasmus with 12b at the center. I think he might be on to something take a look at the structure:

A vv.1-2 The Word as God and with God
. B v. 3 Creation came through the Word
. . C vv. 4-5 We have received life through the Word
. . . D vv. 6-8 John the Baptist is sent to testify
. . . . E vv. 9-10 Incarnation and the response of the world
. . . . . F v. 11 The Word and his own (Israel)
. . . . . . G v. 12a Those who accepted the Word
. . . . . . . . H v. 12b Authority to become children of God
. . . . . . G’ v. 12c Those who believed the Word
. . . . . F’ v. 13 The Word and his own (believers)
. . . . E’ v. 14 Incarnation and the response of the community
. . . D’ v. 15 The testimony of John the Baptist
. .C’ v. 16 We have received grace through the Word
. B’ v. 17 Grace and truth came through the Word
A’ v. 18 The Word as God and with God

As in any chiasmus we should pay close attention to the Beginning and the turning part (the “As” and the “H”)

In the A’s we see an on the identity of Logos (the word – which is Christ) as God

In the H section we see authority/ right to be children of God

The theme’s of John’s Gospel are laid out right from the get go! STUNNING!

But it gets better!! Take a look at Exodus 33:12-34:9 this passage is basically the primary text dealing with the revelation of God in the Old testament. In this passage Moses wants to see God's glory. God allows him to see his "back" but not his face since no one could see him and live (note John 1:18).

Then God passes by and proclaims his name.

a name is a semetic context is more then what you are called... it reffers to What a person stands for, and has accomplished.

So God passes by and Proclaims his name as these words:
"The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in Hesed ve 'emet"

"Hesed ve 'emet" is a hebrew phrase, which is
rendered in John’s Greek as charis kai alētheia (“grace and truth”).

"Grace and Truth" is a part of the Holy Name of God. Now go back and read John 1:1-18

John 1 should blow your mind

The one God who would not show his face to any man, even Moses, has been to shown to us through incarnation. Jesus IS THE UNIQUE GOD of verse 18 and he has MADE GOD KNOWN, and given us the right to be children of God....

Amazing!

//Thanks to Klyne Snodgrass who helped me see this!

I finally got around to listening to the first "Outlaw Preacher" podcast today. It came out late last month.

Who are the "Outlaw Preachers?" I'm not sure if you've run into them at all, but they are a new band of pastors and other Christians who have been stirring up some dust in the more wild regions of the internet. This band of "law breakers" has been causing trouble and plans on causing more.

This is a group of folks I've been following for a while. They've come under a bit of heat because of their association with Jay Bakker, a very influential and controversial Pastor.

Bakker's ministry is grace focused and that emphasis led him to reach out to the Gay community with acceptance a few years ago. As a result of this acceptance Bakker has lost a lot of support and is now the target of a great number of "Heresy Hunters." These "Heresy Hunters" have begun condemning anyone who is connected to Bakker by virtue of association.

I was curious about what this group is all about so I decided to find out. One of their ringleaders, Khad young, is an old friend of mine. We used to ministry together many years ago...

Last time I talked to Khad I asked him what this whole "outlaw preacher" thing was all about...

his response: GRACE

Being an "outlaw preacher" has very little to do with doctrine, and quite a bit to do with love. They belive that God loves everyone and so should we. Love is something that needs to be shown even with those we disagree with.

Take a look at http://www.outlawpreachers.com/ to hear the first Podcast

OR
go to http://twitter.com/outlawpreachers and listen in on the conversation

Worship doesn't always go as planed Just ask the folks in the temple the day Jesus decided to show up with a whip... (John 2:13-16)

Hiccups in worship are my favorite part of a Church Service. I think it's amazing when things go completely NOT according to plan, but wind up being perfect because of it...

I have caused quite a few hiccups. I have fallen off stages on more then one occasion. One day I forgot to bring the Power Point Slides so we had to pull them off the web in real time. In the process we had a worship service with pop up ads of girls in Bikinis going off while singing "The Wonderful Cross." I have broken probably 100 strings on stage in my whole Career as a worship leader.

These are all technical glitches... Even better then these are spiritual glitches.

I have gone up to Preach and had a sense I was preaching the wrong thing as I got up to the Pulpit and just spoke from my heart. These are some of the best sermons I've ever preached.

I have seen people get up and say something during worship that has thrown all the plans out the window because it was a truth that we needed to spend some time with... Even if it came in the wrong Church Season.

These moments are powerful... One of my favorites was when Jay Bakker spoke at the St. Louis Youth Specialties conferance in 2003... If you haven't seen it Track it down!

If you don't know what I'm talking about check out the following video, it's a hiccup that I thought was pretty interesting:

Have you ever experienced Beautiful Chaos in Worship?

I have often wondered what Marshall McLuhan has to say to theologians, and Christians. One man who has been asking these questions for a few years now is Shane Hipps. He is one of the few voices out there actually dealing with the theology of media.

Shane argues that Incarnation is the Medium by which God works in Christianity. Flesh and blood is a form of media by which the Divine chooses to work...

This is very much in line with what McLuhan has to say about Jesus in The Medium and the Light:

"In Jesus Christ, there is no distance or separation between the medium and the message: it is the one case where we can say that the medium and the message are fully one and the same."

This "Flesh and blood" understanding of the message of Jesus is powerful but has a tendency to look at community that is not "flesh and blood" as counterfeit. In the following video Shanes explains why he denies the possibility of virtual community.

For perspective on media in theology that gives more room for virtual community look at what Chris Ridgeway is doing over at "Jesus Under Plastic"

I myself have a "virtual community" I love it dearly... All of you are a part of it!

Take a look at the video!

I have Three questions for Shane:
1) You rightly say History is required for community. However I fail to see HOW virtual communities LACK a history. Many of my friends online are people I have had a long history with. Some I have been talking to me for years though we haven't met. Some I talked to for years and were instant friends when I moved to Chicago. Others were friends I had from Michigan but I now only see online.

2) You talk about "message boards" but fail to take into account how we can now have "face to Face" contact over the Web. When my wife and I are apart we video Chat and play boardgames online Just like we do at home. It feels like she's still with me even though she might be hundreds of miles away. I understand that we could not sustain a healthy marriage indefinitely that way, but why not a friendship and a community?

3) Why is Proximity contingent on "flesh and blood"? A simple question, that probably has no easy answer.

I know many of you worship in a more liturgical setting, but I grew up in a setting where this video would have been a great help: