Holy Wednesday

harbarger theory: it is i!

In today's gospel reading from John 13:21-32 (that you can read here) we hear the whole controversy and discussion about who is going to betray Jesus. This, of course, spurs the questioning, "Is it I?" Only one knew that he had already planned to do so (Judas), but the rest weren't sure. Hmmmm.

How sure are we of our fidelity? I enjoy watching NCIS where Mark Harmon plays Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, a retired Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps where he was Marine Recon and a Sniper. He's a tough so-and-so who expects a lot from Marines and offers them much respect. Of course, their motto is ... what?? Yes, very good there in the back of the room .... Semper Fidelis or "Always faithful."

Are we? Are we Semper Fidelis to our God. Well, maybe you don't have the foibles and lack of restraint that I do. I can't answer for you, but my answer is a "NO!" said with my head bowed and a blush on my cheeks. I'm embarassed to say that I am NOT always (usually?) faithful to God. I go my own way, do what I want, etc, etc, etc, WAAAAYYY too often. How about you?

Today is the day that we repent of our unfaithfulness and come back home (from however far away we have wandered). Today is the day that we re-establish our relationship with God.

Today is the day that I admit, "It is I, Lord! It is I who have betrayed you!" I betrayed you for a candy bar. I betrayed you for a second look at that woman who is not my wonderful wife. I betrayed you for the trappings of acceptance and being liked for a moment. It is I who betrayed you. I am sorry and want to be always faithful ... forever faithful ... always holding you first in my heart.

harbarger theory: it is i!

Holy Tuesday

harbarger theory: sometimes we ARE called to the hard stuff.


The gospel reading for today is John 12:20-36. You can find it here. Jesus is offering a powerful teaching about suffering and destiny. In it, he says, ""Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!"


It reminds me of that "Name it and claim it" garbage that is part and parcel of the Prosperity Gospel heresy. There is a strain of thought in the church that if we are faithful, then God will give us an easier time. What a load of hooey! If JESUS didn't get an easier time, then why should I? Why should you?


Nope. Here's the truth. We are faithful because we love God. We do what is needed ... because it's needed. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about God. It's about my neighbor (both next door and across the globe). It's about having a servant's heart. It's about being like Jesus. It's about serving; about loving; about being selfless; about being like Jesus.


My friends, let's be willing servants!!! Let the world know that Christ changes us!!!


harbarger theory: sometimes we ARE called to the hard stuff.

Holy Monday

harbarger theory: the poor need nard



I'm gonna try to post each day this week. This is Holy Week (the week just before Easter) and it's a powerful week. Of course we celebrate the big days like Maundy Thursday (the first communion service ... ever!), Good Friday (the day of the crucifixion) and the REALLY big day, Easter (the day of the resurrection), but the other days are powerful as well.



Today, the bible reading is John 12:1-11. Here is a link to it on Bible Gateway. It's about the instance where the woman breaks into a dinner party and pours an obscenely expensive jar of ointment on Jesus' feet. Nard, in Jesus' day, was the kind of ointment that only vastly wealthy women could afford to use. We don't know how this woman got it (some scholars suggest that she was a high-priced hooker ... but we don't know). But, she extravagantly shared this expensive potion on someone that she felt was worth it!



Judas (who is described as dipping his greedy little fingers into the Disciples' money bag) complained that this Nard could have been sold for a whole bunch and the money given to the poor. Jesus responded that we'd always have the poor, but they would only have him for a little longer. Not surprisingly, he was right. Jesus indeed left them when he died (and then resurrected, of course, and at that point didn't need freshening up!).



So, the question stands in my mind ... What do the poor need with Nard? Do the unwashed need some scent-management? Do the hungry need a little beauty treatment?



Here's what I think. We need to give Nard to the poor. You see, so often, when we have a food drive, we reach into the back of their cupboard and pull out some can of bizarre/out-of-date/unwanted stuff and give it to the poor and feel so good about ourselves. When we have a clothing drive, we give away the stuff we're too fat/too thin/too fashion-forward to wear anymore (our unwanted items) and we give it to the poor and feel so good about ourselves.



What if ... we gave them the Nard? What if we gave them the GOOD stuff? What if we found a way to effectively "anoint the poor with Nard?" What if we gave them good food, real jobs, decent clothing, genuine respect, actual eye contact, true compassion? What if we treated them like Jesus did? What if we treated them as if they were Jesus? What would that look like?



Yea, yea, yea ... we need to be good stewards of our resources. We need to stretch out dollars to meet as many needs as possible. I know all that. But ... is there a way to be a good steward AND treat the poor as if they were Jesus? I think so. I'd love to spend time in conversation and THEN action trying to do exactly that!!



What if we started a Nard Initiative where we acted like Christians toward the poor? Hmmmm

harbarger theory: the poor need nard

harbarger theory: God is STILL calling women and men to share life together.

I just read Mark Driscoll's blog about "Complementarianism." Mark is the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Mark has done a great job growing a church in a town that's tough to be a Christian in. He also did an EXCELLENT job in the Nightline Debate about whether Satan exists. Watch it here.

But, Mark and I don't agree on the role of women in life and in the church. While I agree that Mark's view is not as extreme as some who would relegate women to very minimal roles in the church, I'm not sure how he deals with the Apostle Paul (as opposed to my buddy Paul) having Lydia and Priscilla/Prisca lead churches. Those don't seem like complementarian roles. I'm not sure how he deals with Deborah being a Judge way back in the pre-monarchical days of the Hebrew people. I'm not sure how he deals with the Acts passage that quotes the Joel passage about young men and young women will prophesy. Those don't seem like complementarian passages.

New Calvinism (or even Old Calvinism) aside, these are not Calvinist/Arminian arguments. These are ways that we see the freedom of God's Spirit to call people as the Spirit will. Why, oh why, would God not allow women to do the job that God has called all of us to do? If women are not fit to carry the gospel to men, then why, oh why, did the angel tell the WOMEN at the tomb to tell the MEN about the resurrection? The very, very FIRST preachers of the gospel of the resurrection were ... wait for it ... women. Sure, the men dismissed them as being silly women ... but the gospel was STILL TRUE!!!

Mark, I pray for you. I support you in your work. But, let God be God. Let the Holy Spirit go and move and call whoever the Holy Spirit will call. God will call who God will call.

Therefore, I stand here. God calls men to do great things. God calls women to do great things. I am honored to stand beside my colleagues and partners in ministry and will do my part and will do what I can to support my colleagues in their ministry, regardless of their sex.

harbarger theory: God is STILL calling women and men to share life together.

harbarger theory: faith is easier sung than done

harbarger theory: faith is easier sung than done



Some accuse praise music as being 7-11 songs. You know ... the same 7 words sung 11 times. And some are. Some find this vacuous and others find this to be a modern version of the chant that allows the singer to be transported into the presence of God. I can agree both ways. But some old hymns are just as vacuous and just as transporting, aren't they?



It's not about the music STYLE, as much as it is about the singer's perspective, the quality of the lyric, the ability of the music leader and the distractions or lack-thereof.



As for me, I like powerful modern worship music. As time goes on, I find I like the more modern stuff better than the 80's and early 90's stuff, but some of that has power as well.



However, I agree with Brian McLaren that we need less "I love Jesus" music and more "I serve the world" music. Not only should it transport me into the presence of God, but the music should also kick me out the door into serving the world.



All that being said, it's so much easier to sing about loving God and even about loving my neighbor (near, far and really, really far) than it is putting that into action in my everyday life. But, that's the rub, isn't it? I sing about it. I read the Word about it. I hear (and preach) sermons about it. And then ... I need to DO something about it.



Yep, that's my theory.

harbarger theory: faith is easier sung than done

BTW: this excellent cartoon is the wonderful work of Jon Birch, a Brit who creates a brilliant cartoon blog at The Further Adventures Of ASBO Jesus. Check it out!

something completely different

I like Monty Python. They had a show "Now For Something Completely Different." This is not that drastic, but I liked it. This is not my usual "harbarger theory," but that's the thing that's different. A blog I like to read is "Don't Eat Alone" and the blogger (Milton Brasher) posted this . I liked it. I hope you do, too. Those rascally AIG'ers.

harbarger theory: lent is not lint.

From my Appalachian heritage and speech patterns, I don't make a pronunciation distinction between "lent" and "lint." I don't say a difference. I don't hear a difference. If I somehow stumble into saying "lent" instead of "lint," then you can just know that it was unconscious and unnoticed.

But, in my heart, there is a tremendous ... world-changing ... difference between Lent ... this season of preparation where we forsake a beloved pasttime or add a new discipline to our lives to help us to get our heads around (in a very, very small way) of the sacrifice of Christ ... and lint ... this fluffy stuff that grows in our dryer filter or in our belly-buttons. Lint is stuff we can discard (or collect to start campfires with!) and Lent is a tool that helps us focus our hearts.

A good and wise friend (thank you Naomi!) e-mailed me this week suggesting that maybe ... just maybe ... we should NOT pick up those things that we lived without during Lent, since most of them are things like caffeine, chocolate, etc and then next year, getting rid of another destructive habit. A commendable idea, I might say!!

But, let me share with you why I don't do it that way. If you remember my post about Messy Foods then you'll know that I believe life is to be live OUT LOUD with fun and hilarity and stuff on my shirt. I believe that God gave us all kinds of wonderful things like mud and chocolate and coffee beans and that we are to use them and to revel in them.

John the Baptist came preaching austerity. Jesus came preaching abundance. Fasting is a good thing. But, I don't believe that we are to live "fasting lives." We are to live abundant lives biting into juicy peaches and letting the nectar run down our chins.

Therefore, when Lent is over, I'll be back to having the occasional "high-test," that is caffeinated latte. I urge you to fast when it's appropriate and to feast when it's appropriate.

Lent is powerful and important. Lint is trash. But, Lent is not life. Life is life.

harbarger theory: lent is not lint.