The Gospel: More Than the Bridge Diagram

In The Atonement: Did God Just Really Need to Punish Someone? (posted October 6), the writer, Kristen, questions the idea that the gospel should only be understood as "God needed to punish someone for sin, so he punished Jesus." She argues that this concept of Christ taking the punishment in our place is an analogy that can be very helpful (and is supported by the bible) but also should not be taken too literally (the analogy breaks down when it starts implying that God is a divine child-abuser, obsessed with punishment).

Furthermore, she points to several other analogies found in the bible which explain the meaning of Christ's death, and weaves them together into a gospel presentation which I think is very insightful and meaningful.

In other words, there are many different ways to explain and understand Jesus' death- Why did he have to die? What was he saving us from?- and these different explanations are all valid (though none of them can fully explain it) and different ones may be meaningful to different people.

Which leads me to this question: What makes a valid gospel presentation? What components does it need to have?

A "gospel presentation" is a short explanation of the main message of Christianity. Generally Christians learn how to do a gospel presentation so that when they get a chance to talk with a non-Christian who wants to hear what Christianity is about, they'll know what to say.

In my experience, the gospel presentation is something written by someone else, which I then memorize and teach to other Christians too. And it goes along with a picture I'm supposed to draw as I talk through the explanation. But let me emphasize that it's not a clever gimmick or used-car-salesman tactic- it's a way to help Christians effectively explain what we believe.

I really believe this stuff. There's nothing dishonest about trying to find an effective way to articulate it to others.

At the same time, it shouldn't just be me reciting what I've been taught- it should be something that really means a lot to me.

So anyway, the most common gospel presentation I've seen is "the bridge diagram":

Image source.

In the bridge diagram, first you draw 2 cliffs- one for people, one for God, with a big gap between them. The gap represents sin that separates us from God. BUT then you draw the cross in the middle- Jesus' death allows us to cross over and be with God! Awesome!

(That was the quick and dirty explanation- if I were actually explaining this to someone who asked me about Christianity, I would definitely go into more detail.)

I really think I'll always love the bridge diagram, if only for nostalgic reasons. It's the first gospel presentation I ever saw/learned/used. It's very easy to remember and easy to draw.

But here's the problem: It doesn't really resonate with me. Yeah, I believe it, but this isn't what saved me, this isn't what convinced me to dedicate my entire life to Jesus, this isn't what inspires me to love God and love people every day of my life.

Like, sin is a gap that separates us from God- why? Just because you drew it there doesn't mean it's true. Overall, the bridge diagram just seems very abstract and it's hard to connect the different parts to practical things in my life.

But I thought "the gospel" WAS the bridge diagram. And while you didn't have to literally draw the picture, you had to at least talk through the explanation that goes along with it, or else you weren't really "sharing the gospel."

I've always heard warnings about how evil it is to "water down the gospel", to change it so it's "more palatable", and how Jesus offended a lot of people... so we should be suspicious of any interpretation of his life/death that's meant to really resonate with and attract people.

But I don't believe that anymore.

I am a Christian because something about the gospel and Christianity IS very attractive and meaningful to me. Why would I be required to use a one-size-fits-all gospel explanation that doesn't really speak to the reasons that led me personally to follow Christ?

And I have to thank InterVarsity Christian Fellowship for introducing me to other gospel presentation diagrams. At first, I was very suspicious- If it's not the bridge diagram, then is it really the gospel? Is that even allowed? You're trying to change the gospel so it sounds better???

But I went along with it, and learned the four worlds diagram and the broken family diagram.

Four worlds diagram. Image source.

My FAVORITE gospel diagram is the broken family diagram. (I guess that makes me a very high-level Christian nerd, having a favorite gospel diagram...) Both the four worlds diagram and the broken family diagram emphasize what sin is and why it's a problem- the destructive effect that each person's tendency towards selfishness has on relationships between people.

Also, both of these gospel presentations are very clear about living a whole new life after believing in Jesus- he saves us from our own sins/weaknesses, which we could not overcome on our own, and he calls us to love others and make the world a better place- to fight against the very real effects of sin that were mentioned earlier in the gospel explanation.

And that really makes sense to me and means a lot to me.

(However, neither of these diagrams necessarily includes the concept of hell. My opinion on this is: that doesn't matter. I believe hell is real, but the idea of Jesus saving me from hell after I die is kind of meh. Instead, I need him RIGHT NOW- I know from experience what kind of hell-on-earth he has already saved me from.)

None of these simple diagrams can fully explain what Christianity is about. But that's okay- they each give a slightly different perspective on it. The significance of who Jesus is and what he did may vary from one Christian to another, from one culture to another.

On the other hand, you can't just say whatever you want and call it the gospel. "Jesus just wants everyone to be nice to people" is NOT the gospel. 

So, I leave you with these questions: What parts are required for a gospel presentation to be faithful to the bible? What is required to have a gospel presentation which is effective in convincing people? (And is it even okay to have a goal of "convincing people"?)

I am a feminist, and I pray.

Somewhere along the way, I forgot about God's power. Because of feminism.

Because feminism fights against the unjust structures that exist within society- including within the church. We don't buy the "husbands are supposed to lead, wives are supposed to submit" thing because it's sexist and it can so easily be used to control or abuse women. We see no reason women should not be pastors- in fact, why is it such a big deal? Why does a woman need to fight to use the abilities and ambitions God has given her?

Also, feminists want to give a voice to the voiceless. To tell the victim's story, when a pastor rapes a teenage girl, and the attitude of the majority of the church is "it's her fault, she seduced him" and "don't talk about it."

But where is God? Where is God, when we have to speak out, when we have to fight? Doesn't the bible say authorities were set up by God? But we can't trust the authorities to keep us safe. We can't let the husband be the automatic leader because he might abuse his power over his wife. We can't trust the church to value women, to keep its most vulnerable members safe, to not blame the victim.

No, instead we have to be alert. We have to speak out against injustice and sexism, wherever we see it. We're on our own.

We're on our own.

Because if the church won't protect us, who will?

We're on our own.

I think this is one of feminism's weaknesses- the tendency to feel like "we're on our own", and that everybody else is blind to the realities of racism and sexism in our culture, and the thousand little things that continually perpetuate that injustice. To get discouraged because we see so much that's not the way it should be.

But I can't accept this. I have experienced the very real power of God, alive and active in the world. I know from experience that God hears and answers prayers. We are not on our own.

But how can I reconcile this with feminism's message that "you can't trust those with power to do the right thing- you need to fight for your own rights"? Where is God? I just want to trust and feel safe. I don't want this.

I don't have an answer for that right now, but here's one thing I want to say: Feminism understands the concept of a "broken world" much better than a lot of Christians do. Feminism notices inequality and speaks out against it, rather than assuming that's just the way it is. Feminism understands that oppression and injustice aren't just caused by faceless, corrupt politicians in third-world countries- no, they exist right here, in the US. Right here, in the racist and sexist attitudes I have subconsciously believed, right here in my own sin.

So I'm not saying it's bad that my eyes have been opened to the fact that abuse is real, rape is real, sexism is real. These are things Christianity predicted when it talked about "living in a broken world."

But still, where is God?

He's here. He's alive. I don't know exactly how- I don't know the answer to why God allows bad things to happen. But I have experienced his power, changing my life over and over, and I know this is what I believe.

I believe in the power of prayer. I believe God hears and God works, and when I ask "where is God?" maybe the first step is to try talking to him. Here are my feminist prayer requests:

• That God would bring healing for those who are victims of rape and abuse. That God would show them his unconditional love and destroy the lies that say "you're worthless" and "it's your fault".
• That Christians would be known for their love.
• That Christian girls would grow up with a strong sense of their identity in Christ. To know that God made them and God loves them unconditionally, and their worth is not at all related to their modesty or purity. To know that they are not any less valuable than men. That their greatest purpose in life is not marriage and motherhood, but to follow Jesus. And that God does not see their femininity and sexuality as something evil that attacks and seduces men. 
• An end to sexism in the church. An end to the unquestioned assumption that women aren't supposed to be pastors. Or that "yes, we can have a woman pastor, but wouldn't it be BETTER if it was a man?"
• For Christian organizations that have programs aimed at helping the poor: I pray that their work would be effective and make a real difference in people's lives. I pray that they would see "the poor" not as less-than-human, too dumb to take care of themselves, but as real people, as our brothers and sisters. I pray that those in charge of the programs would first seek to understand the needs of the people they are serving. First listen, without telling them what you think they need.
• That God would give strength to those caught in abusive relationships. That God would provide a way to get help, without being paralyzed by shame, without blaming themselves, without fear of not being believed.
• I pray for greater love and understanding within the church, between Christians who interpret parts of the bible differently.
• That I would be part of God's plan. That God would give me opportunities to listen to people and care about them and love them like Jesus would.

For some of these things, I'm praying for huge change in the way society works. For some, I'm praying for individual people who have been hurt- maybe even people I know. For some, I'm praying for myself.

I am a feminist, and I pray.

-------------

Question: What would you add to my list of "feminist prayer requests"?

Blogaround

1. What About Divorce? (posted September 29) A thorough analysis on what Jesus/ the bible has to say about divorce. "Divorce, in and of itself, is not inherently evil"- for one thing, the bible often uses the metaphor of God divorcing Israel because of their rebellion. This post is totally worth reading- it brought up a lot of ideas I'd never thought about.

2. Niger's hunger brides- in pictures (posted September 28) Girls as young as 11 getting married because their family can't support them and needs the dowry money.

3. Ask a stay-at-home dad... (response) (posted October 2) "We could not have picked a 'better' church to visit on our first Sunday, as the pastor was speaking that week – scratch that; he was shouting – about 'biblical' gender roles, referencing stay-at-home dads as 'abnormal' and it being against God’s will for a wife to have a larger income than her husband. Needless to say, we failed to fill out a visitor’s card." To be honest, I'm SHOCKED to hear this.

4. Ikea's Saudi Arabia catalog erases women; company expresses regret (posted October 1) Some examples here. Not cool.

5. Is ambition a sin? (posted October 3) In which Rachel Held Evans challenges the thinking that says it's wrong for Christians (particularly women) to promote their own work (blogs, writing, etc) because it's selfish ambition. AMEN TO THIS!

6. First World Problems Are Real Problems (posted September 28) This is a really interesting perspective.

7. The hardest day, or, Your life matters (posted October 2) "From the time we walked up to the nutrition area to the time we walked away, no one had come to help him. I didn’t help him. I couldn’t. I walked away with weak knees and a weaker promise. I will remember you. Your life matters."

8. Most Citizens of the Star Wars Galaxy are Probably Totally Illiterate (posted October 3)

9. Why the Church needs to stop reaching out (posted October 5)

10. Idolatry of the Family (posted September 11) "When I read the Bible, I get the distinct sense that Jesus wasn’t interested in saving the nuclear family from a windy onslaught of liberal opinions. I rather get the impression that he was concerned with diving headfirst into the unvarnished messiness of the human condition and saving us— as individuals, as families, as communities, as people— from our own unhinged self-absorption and festering lovelessness."

11. Five Ways Christains Must Stop Failing the Poor (posted October 1)

Fair Trade: My Unanswered Questions

October is Fair Trade Month! I will celebrate by explaining what fair trade is, and then asking a few questions I do not yet have answers for.

Image source.

What does "fair trade" mean?

If a product is fair trade certified, it means that it was produced by farmers/workers who received a decent fair wage. Not slaves.

Fair Trade USA certifies the following products: "coffee, tea and herbs, cocoa, fresh fruit and vegetables, sugar, beans and grains, flowers, nuts, oils and butters, honey and spices, wine and apparel". In general, fair trade is mostly for coffee and chocolate. In this blog post, I'm focusing on chocolate, because that's the area where fair trade most affects my life.

Wait a minute- if "fair trade" means the farmers got paid decently for their work, then does "not fair trade" mean it was produced through slavery?

Yeah, that's the big question, isn't it?

First of all, slavery is real. It is estimated that there are 2.5 million victims of human trafficking around the world. Some are sex slaves, and some are doing forced labor.

In particular, there is concern over using children as slaves in the production of chocolate in West Africa. (Note: There is a difference between child labor and child slavery, but I would argue that both should not exist.) 69% of the world's cocoa comes from West Africa, with 35% from Cote d'Ivoire- and child exploitation is a huge concern for cocoa farms in these areas.

Image source.

It's real. Google it.

Okay so you've convinced me that slavery exists in the production of chocolate. But you haven't answered my question: Does chocolate that is NOT labeled as "fair trade" come from slavery?

Well how can we possibly know? They're not going to write that on the packaging. But I get the impression, based on what I've read online, that any cocoa from the Ivory Coast is a little suspicious.

One reason for chocolate slavery is a drop in cocoa prices. Cocoa is an "unstable crop", and a drop in price forces farmers to cut costs, sometimes by resorting to slavery.

So... does that mean normally they treat the workers nice, and then in bad years they beat them up and don't pay them? What is "normally"?

Like, can we get some idea on the percentage of slave-produced cocoa in a Hershey's bar? 10%? 30%? 80%? 100%? And at what percent do I decide it's immoral for me to buy it? At what percent would it be immoral for Hershey to sell it?

If I boycott non-fair-trade chocolate, is that actually helpful?

Yeah, I don't know. To understand how to address the problem of slavery in West Africa, we first have to understand the culture and the causes of slavery. There's not going to be some magical easy solution.

Some in the chocolate industry (maybe they're a little biased) argue that "A ‘slave free’ label would hurt the people it is intended to help because it would lead to a boycott of all Ivory Coast cocoa." If you just don't buy it because you don't know where it came from, what if it mostly came from honest people who paid their workers fairly? Is it right to boycott anything not marked as "fair trade" just because some of it is suspicious? (Again, percentages could be helpful here.)

Of course, one could also argue that when you buy fair trade chocolate, you know for sure that the money goes to paying workers a good wage; you know for sure it's not supporting slavery. Isn't that superior to buying chocolate of suspicious origin?

Not necessarily...

Hey, isn't fair trade a lot more expensive though?

Well, a Green & Black chocolate bar costs about $4, while a Hershey bar of comparable size (ish) costs about $1.

BUT the fair trade chocolate is much higher quality. It's rich, dark chocolate. Is that worth the price difference? The customer can decide that.

So do I have a responsibility to only buy fair trade chocolate?

Yeah, that's the question I'm trying to answer for myself.

The economy of chocolate is incredibly complex- how can I know what effect fair trade products have on workers on the other side of the world? It's much more complicated then "Hey let's fight slavery- everyone buy fair trade! Yay!"

How can I say I know better than Hershey about the ethical way to buy and sell chocolate? I don't know anything. I'm just over here googling stuff.

Even if ordinary chocolate does partially come from slavery, does that mean it's immoral for me to buy it? I don't have an answer.

In conclusion, the effect of me buying a fair trade chocolate bar rather than regular, cheap chocolate is unclear- I honestly can't make an argument that it's immoral to buy regular chocolate. BUT don't use that as an excuse to not take any action against slavery. Yes, I've raised some valid questions and criticism, but in the end, whoever is going around certifying fair trade products is doing A LOT MORE to fight slavery than I am. 

It's easy to sit here at my computer and criticize people who are trying to make a difference in the world- as if implementing an imperfect solution is worse than ignoring the problem entirely.

Fair trade- it's not the magical answer to save the world. It's not something you're REQUIRED to buy in order to not be a terrible person. No, we need a lot more insight into the culture and economy of West Africa in order to combat slavery.

But it's a good start.

Caramel Brownie Recipe (THE BEST EVER!)

This isn't a food blog, but it would be immoral for me not to share this recipe with the world. These brownies are the greatest.

Caramel Brownies

(The following set of directions are explained in great detail, for n00bs like me. Scroll to the bottom for the short version.)

Ingredients:

1 lb caramels- the soft kind that you can melt- not chocolate-covered or anything
1 can evaporated milk (need 5/6 cup, aka 6.7 fl oz)
1 chocolate cake mix- German chocolate is good, Devil's Food is good, whatever, just something with a lot of chocolate
1 cup chocolate chips
3/4 cup melted butter or margarine

Only 5 ingredients. Plus oil to grease the pan.

1. Unwrap all the caramels. (Haha, this is perhaps the most important step.) Melt the caramels and 1/2 cup evaporated milk over low heat. KEEP AN EYE ON THIS! You don't want the caramels to burn. Basically these are going to be melting while you work on the other parts of the recipe. Make sure you stir it a lot. And it needs to be on LOW heat.

(If you realize that mixing the other ingredients/ finding a clean brownie pan/ trying to figure out how the oven works is taking way longer than you expected, take the caramels off the heat for a bit. DON'T BURN THEM!)

If it boils, you're doing it wrong.

2. Mix cake mix, melted butter, and 1/3 cup evaporated milk.
3. Press 1/2 of the cake mixture into a 13x9 greased pan. It may look like there's not enough to cover the entire bottom of the pan. You can use a little more than half if you want, but not too much. Spread it out so it covers the whole bottom of the pan. Also, it's a good idea to put the bowl with the other half of the cake mixture in the fridge, while this is baking.

4. Bake at 350 F for 8 minutes.
5. Sprinkle with chocolate chips.
6. Pour caramel mixture over the chocolate chips. Use a spoon to spread the caramel all around so it covers basically the whole thing.

Protip: If you want the pan to be easy to clean, don't spread the caramel all the way to the edges. The downside of this method is the edge brownies get less caramel. You need to carefully consider your priorities.

7. Crumble the rest of the cake mixture on top of the caramel.
8. Bake at 350 for 18 minutes. The brownies will be really gooey- let them cool all the way before you eat them. Just kidding, no one actually does that. These things are so awesome- no one wants to wait til they're cool.

And if you screw it up, well, how bad can it be? It's full of chocolate and caramel- it will probably still taste awesome. (There have been times I burned the caramels, and it still tasted fine.)

Image source.

And here is the short version of the recipe, without all my commentary and photos:

Ingredients:
1 lb caramels
1 can evaporated milk (need 5/6 cup, aka 6.7 fl oz)
1 chocolate cake mix
1 cup chocolate chips
3/4 cup melted butter or margarine

1. Melt the caramels and 1/2 cup evaporated milk over low heat.
2. Mix cake mix, melted butter, and 1/3 cup evaporated milk.
3. Press 1/2 of the cake mixture into a 13x9 greased pan.
4. Bake at 350 F for 8 minutes.
5. Sprinkle with chocolate chips.
6. Pour caramel mixture over the chocolate chips.
7. Crumble the rest of the cake mixture on top of the caramel.
8. Bake at 350 for 18 minutes.

I Would Only Follow a God Who Was Tempted

I always imagined the devil as a really pale white guy with a black robe and black hair and a pointy black goatee. Now I realize that's because of this illustration in a little-kid bible I used to read:

Source: Early Reader's Bible, 1991.

Some very exciting news today: This bible story (Matthew 4:1-11) is available in the form of a rage comic! Many thanks to An Average Jane for making this. I laughed so much. Go check it out. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

Matthew 4:2 "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry."

Captain Obvious's favorite bible verse. Image source

But seriously, is that even possible? Fasting for 40 days? Okay, it's October 3- that would be like if I hadn't eaten since August 24. Raise your hand if you even remember what you were doing on August 24. Yeah, me neither.

Yes, it is possible. Apparently the average person can go maybe 8 weeks without food. Hunger strikes (many of them lasting over 50 days) have been used as a form of protest- Gandhi did this.

In this story, satan is talking to Jesus- is that even real?

Whenever I've read this story, I always imagined satan (to whom I give the middle finger of grammar) as a person, talking to Jesus, who's a person. I never even thought to question it.

The devil can't be a person. God became man, and that was a super huge big deal- one of the most powerful and amazing events in the history of the world. I don't think the devil can become a human too. He's not God.

So, there are 2 possibilities for what's going on here:

1. The devil appears to Jesus in the same sort of way angels sometimes appeared in the bible.
2. It's all in Jesus' head.

For option #1, okay, that makes sense- the devil is technically an angel. (Not sure if the bible explicitly says this or not, but it's what I've always heard.) In the bible, whenever an angel showed up, it was very obvious that it was an angel and not a human- and everyone was terrified of them. (For obvious reasons. I'd be super-freaked-out if an angel turned up in my apartment.)

Dude, I was about to put in an image of a weeping angel from Doctor Who, but I got too freaked out just looking at the thumbnails. Instead, have a care bear. Image source.

But I actually lean toward option #2- it was all in Jesus' head. This makes sense because, in my experience, temptation does not come from some glowing scary guy standing next to me, offering bad advice- no, temptation comes from my own mind.

And for the parts where satan takes Jesus to the highest point of the temple, and then takes him to the top of a mountain- I really think it makes more sense to interpret this as a vision that Jesus had, rather than actually physically going to those places. Because how would they get there? Walk? If it takes an hour to walk there, do you think they made small talk along the way? Did satan pick Jesus up and carry him there? I don't think Jesus would submit to that.

Why would Jesus put up with this? Aren't we supposed to flee from temptation? But if it's in his head, he can't escape. And isn't that the way temptation is? It's in my head- it's not some external influence I can just remove from my life.

Hold on perfectnumber, I don't think you're allowed to say this. Are you saying this wasn't real? No. The temptation that Jesus experienced was definitely real. Are you saying the bible isn't true? No. I definitely believe the bible- I'm just trying to figure out what Matthew meant here, based on what else I know about God and temptation and what makes sense.

All right so let's look at the 3 things satan asked Jesus to do:

"If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

satan challenged Jesus to prove his Son-of-God status. Wow, that's pretty insulting- but Jesus didn't take the bait. He knew it would be wrong to turn the stones into bread, even though he could totally do it.

"I'll turn this one into a coffee cake." Image source.

Why is it wrong? Look at Jesus' response. He quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Listening to God was more important than Jesus' physical needs. He had already made a commitment to fasting in order to focus on God the Father.

What would this temptation look like for the average American Christian nowadays? It would be breaking a commitment you've made to God. It would be me realizing I need to pray more, and then spending all my free time reading blogs on teh intarwebz instead.

Some things are more important than blogs and Facebook and whatever other silly things I spend time on. Some things are right up there with physical needs. Christians NEED prayer. Christians NEED the word of God. Jesus needed it too.

The devil quotes Scripture too.

Next, satan takes Jesus to the highest point of the temple (I would argue that this is in a vision) and tells him to jump off, because God will keep you safe. satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12 "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."

In other words, "You can fly!" Image source.

All 3 times satan makes a dumb suggestion, Jesus replies by quoting the bible. But satan can quote the bible too, as we see here. That's why it's so freakin' important to understand CONTEXT and what the author was trying to say, instead of just taking one verse and declaring "the bible is clear on this." satan's interpretation of this verse is WRONG!

satan is basically telling Jesus to do something stupid and then trust God to save him.

"Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble." Mufasa's words of wisdom. Image source.

This doesn't really seem like a "temptation" to me- it seems more like an incorrect understanding of what faith is. See, Jesus, if you just had more FAITH, you'd jump off. Don't you believe the promise God made in Psalm 91?

And Jesus' answer? He quotes Deuteronomy 6:16 "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." In other words, yeah, maybe God would rescue him if he jumped off. But why even do that? Force God to step in and rescue you because you did something stupid. That's not right.

This reminds me of weird, extreme groups within Christianity who pick up snakes because of that one verse that says you can pick up snakes, or who don't believe in medicine because you should just pray for God to heal you. Again, it's not exactly a "temptation"- it's an incorrect understanding of faith and how God works.

And what about in my own life? What would be an example of doing something stupid and expecting God to support me? If I rushed into another culture, thinking I'm going to bring them the gospel and save them from their stupid, backwards ways- and that of course God would help me. No, that's not how it works. Whether I'm talking to other Americans who don't belong to the internet-geek subculture that I do, or people on the other side of the world, I need to listen and understand them first, instead of just thinking I have all the answers.

As I already said, this one seems weird to me because it's not really a "temptation." I understand "temptation" to be something that you really want to do, but you know you shouldn't, and you try to convince yourself it's really not so bad. But for the "jump off a building and God will save you" case, it's something you DON'T want to do, but your common-sense refusal is taken as a sign that you lack faith. Or maybe you didn't have a "common-sense refusal"- you rushed into something that's way over your head because you genuinely thought God was into that kind of thing. It's a mistake that comes from an incorrect belief about how God works. It's not something "you know you shouldn't do".

Next, the devil asks Jesus to worship him.

Then they go to a mountain and look at "all the kingdoms of the world." This is why I think it was a vision, not real life- where are you going to find a mountain with a view of "all the kingdoms of the world" (or even the kingdoms known to them at that time)? And Jesus had been fasting for 40 days- I'd imagine he's not up for climbing a mountain right now.

satan says, "All this I will give you, if you will bow down and worship me." FYI if this ever comes up in your life, the correct answer is DO NOT worship satan.

What exactly is the temptation here? Jesus was about to start his ministry- which would be characterized by suffering and serving, and eventually getting killed. Wouldn't it be much easier to not do that? He could just get power over the world by worshiping satan (although I have some doubt as to whether satan would keep his end of the deal).

Wait, why doesn't Jesus just fake it? He can bow down- it doesn't really mean anything, whatever. No- honor and shame were a big deal in that culture- it DID mean something.

How does this temptation come up in my life? Sometimes there's an "easy way out". Doing the right thing is hard. But if cutting corners involves doing something I know is wrong, then that's not okay.

The devil finally leaves.

Jesus says "Away from me, satan!" Why didn't he say this earlier? I thought Christians are supposed to avoid situations where there could be temptation. Why doesn't Jesus get serious about kicking him out until the 3rd temptation?

It's almost like Jesus knew his own limits and weaknesses and was confident that he had the situation under control- no need for some huge reaction. Until the idea of worshiping satan comes up- he didn't tolerate that at all.

But I thought Christians are supposed to flee from temptation. As in, at the slightest hint, you GTFO (err... you get out of there). Because you never know what you're capable of. Am I wrong about this, or is Jesus special and doesn't need to be so jumpy and fearful about it?

Or, if it was all in his head, maybe there was no way for him to escape, until the devil gave up.

It's inaccurate to refer to this as "the temptation of Jesus".

Whenever I hear someone make a reference to the fact that Jesus experienced temptation like we do, I think of this story. But that's not right- Jesus lived on earth for 33 years- surely he faced A LOT more temptation than just these 3 explicit suggestions from satan.

Was Jesus *actually* tempted?

There are 2 parts involved in temptation:

1. You get some idea of a bad thing to do.
2. You start to think about it and reason with yourself, thinking maybe you might actually do it.

In this passage, was Jesus at step 1 or step 2? Was he thinking that anything satan says is automatically a bad idea, so just reject it right away, or was he thinking, "ya know, I could make those stones into bread. Wow, that would be really tasty. I could really go for some cinnamon-raisin bread right now. That would actually be pretty cool- it would be like a practice miracle. Yeah... wow, that sounds really delicious..."

There is a HUGE difference. It's so much harder to reject something after you've already imagined what it would be like and made a plan for how to do it.

This really matters to me. What kind of God do I follow? Does my Lord know what that's like- to want something, to really want something, to reason with yourself about whether it's okay, and come to the conclusion that no, no, you absolutely can't do it, no matter how awesome it seems?

Does he know? Does he know? Does Jesus understand?

I need a God who understands. Who knows that there's more to it than "well, that's wrong, don't do it. Duh."

Hebrews 2:18 says, "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."

And I believe that's the God I have. My Savior did want to eat those stones. He was slightly offended at the whole "if you are the Son of God" bit. And maybe for a second, he wondered if he could get away with not doing the whole "suffering servant" thing.

Later, Matthew writes about Jesus' power to heal diseases and control the weather. But first we see his power over his own mind, his own desires- and it is this power more than anything else which qualifies him to be the Savior.

----------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: John the Baptist was Kind of Obsessed with Fire (Matthew 3)

Next post: In which Jesus actually starts doing stuff (Matthew 4:12-25)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

Blogaround

1. "Every Person Is Afraid of the Drones": The Strikes' Effect on Life in Pakistan (posted September 25)

2. Call It Maybe (NFL Replacement Officials Parody) (posted September 21) I lolled.

"The jumbo screen showed the replay, I missed it so bad, I missed it so bad, I missed it so so bad."

3. The Simple Things (posted September 26) "The church would let me or they're not Christians." Sometimes obeying God is simpler than we'd like.

(Or is it?)

4. Systems, privilege, and the "Top 200 Church Blogs" list (posted September 25) Why using "objective measures" to determine the "top 200 church blogs" inadvertently produces a list dominated by white, straight men.

5. 113,000 Reasons Why We Love Portuguese (posted September 26) Just a reminder that large sections of the internet are not in English. This makes me smile.

6. More thoughts on Salvation and urgency... (posted September 6) "Too often in our modern era, we have seen methods where we urge, plea and coax for people to come to Christ. High pressure tactics or emotional manipulation can be used." As Christians, if we try to pressure people into believing in Jesus, then evidently we do not really believe in the power of the gospel- we think we need to help it along.

7. Brave and the Legacy of the Anti-Princess (posted July 26) Great article if you are a fan of Disney, feminism, and analyzing things. It's about Disney's non-traditional princesses, non-princesses which are inexplicably (*cough* money *cough*) included in the "Disney princess" line, and princesses/ other women which are left out.

8. Modest is Hottest? The Revealing Truth (posted September 27) "If we are teaching the girls in our lives that the primary objective of modesty is to keep themselves covered so boys and men don’t think sexual thoughts about them, then we are teaching girls they are responsible for other peoples’ thoughts and they are primarily sexual objects in need of covering." Yes! (See also my posts on modesty: here and here.)

9. Feminist Odyssey Blog Carnival, Fourth Edition: Faith & Feminism (posted September 28) Lots of blog posts on the topic of "faith and feminism"- many of them by feminist Christians.

Measure words are totally not that bad

We now come to reason #471 that Mandarin is impossible to learn: measure words.

What are measure words?

You can think of measure words as putting units on the nouns you're talking about. English uses them sometimes too- for example, you have a bowl of soup, a pair of pants, a slab of concrete, a cup of coffee, a piece of paper, a bouquet of flowers.

But the difference is that in Chinese, every noun has a measure word that's supposed to go with it.

Here are the common ones I can think of offhand:

个 (gè) - The most common measure word (absolutely no question about this). I would guess that 70% of the time you use a measure word, you use 个.
本 (běn) - for books
只 (zhǐ) - for many kinds of animals- dogs, cats, lions, monkeys, etc etc.
张 (zhāng) - for large, flat things- a piece of paper, a photo, a table, a bed
条 (tiáo) - for long things- pants, fish, roads

All of these things are measured in 条. Images from: here, here, and here.

But actually, you don't need measure words as much as you might think.

Chinese grammar is incredibly different than English grammar. The best way I can describe it is this: In Chinese you need way less words than you'd think.

Chinese doesn't have a direct translation for "the" and "a". A lot of times you don't need to put a "the" or "a" in front of a noun- you just say the noun. It's simple.

I learned the word 书 (shū), which means book, pretty early in my Chinese 101 class. We did not learn the measure word for books, 本 (běn), until maybe a year later. Why? Because you can totally talk about books in a way that's grammatically correct without ever needing the measure word.

Seriously. Chinese is easy. Or incredibly confusing. Take your pick.

Okay, when DO I use measure words then?

You definitely need them if you're counting. You can ask someone how many 本 (běn) of books they have, and they would answer 1 本 (běn), 2 本 (běn), etc. (Which just means 1 book, 2 books, etc.)

Or if you point at something and say "this one" and "that one", the word "one" gets translated as the measure word for that object. Again, with the books example and the most literal translation possible, someone could say "Bring me my Chinese book" (no 本 (běn) required in this sentence) and the other person could ask "Is it this 本 (běn)?" (Meaning, "Is it this one?")

(I'm sorry if this is incredibly convoluted and confusing. Please ask for clarification! I feel like I have a really unique perspective on this, since my first language is English, and I hope it means I can explain Chinese grammar to English-speaking people effectively. But sometimes I don't remember what it's like to not know any Chinese.)

Sometimes it's very very important to get the measure word right.

Now you might be thinking, "Okay, if 1 本 (běn) of books just means 1 book... basically every measure word just means you have 1 of those things, whatever the thing may be, so what does it matter? They all mean the same thing."

Yes, this is true. Most of them don't have a super-special meaning which requires you to pick out the correct measure word. That's why you can always use 个 (gè), if you don't know the "right" measure word, and it'll be fine. It's not grammatically right, but everyone knows what you're saying. See, the measure words are not such a huge obstacle.

However, sometimes the measure word does have a certain meaning, or a certain subtle "feel" to it.

For example, you'd normally use 个 (gè) when talking about people. There are 3 个 (gè) of people in my lab. (Meaning, there are 3 people in my lab.)

But if you are being a little bit more formal/polite, you use 位 (wèi). When you arrive at a restaurant, the waiter might ask you how many 位 (wèi) of people are in your group. (Meaning, how many people are in your group?)

And if you're asking someone about their family, you often ask how many 口 (kǒu) of people are in their family. 口 (kǒu) literally means mouth. (Yes, it is a box. It looks like a mouth. Chinese characters really do make a lot of sense.) In other words, how many mouths to feed?

And sometimes, using different measure words gives a slightly different meaning. For example, 课 (kè) means class. There are 2 different measure words associated with 课 (kè), and they have different meanings. One 节课 (jié kè) is one class session. One 门课 (mén kè) is the course itself, which lasts for the whole semester. So you might ask someone how many 节课 (jié kè) they have on a particular day, and how many 门课 (mén kè) they have in a particular semester. Your question will be interpreted slightly differently depending on which measure word you use.

And sometimes the measure word has a very specific, concrete meaning- it literally is the units on the noun. For example, a 分钟 (fēn zhōng) is a minute, and a 秒钟 (miǎo zhōng) is a second. 分 (fēn) and 秒 (miǎo) are both measure words (钟 (zhōng) means... uh... clock? Something related to time? It's hard to translate...), and they both translate perfectly into the English words "minute" and "second".

(Though I need to throw in the caveat that 分 (fēn) has some other meanings too... Translation is hard, guys.)

Conclusion

Measure words are nothing to be scared of. You actually don't need them as much as one might imagine, because Chinese grammar is simpler than English. Also, when in doubt, just use 个 (gè) and everyone understands what you mean, no problem.

But when you start to learn the nuances of the different measure words, the slight (or big) differences in meaning, it's fascinating. Measure words are not a barrier towards speaking and understanding Chinese- they are just one of many eye-opening ways that Chinese is different than English. As a beginner, you can use 个 (gè) and there's no barrier in understanding, but as you learn more and more, it will feel more natural to use the correct measure words.

I love how different languages have wildly different structures, different ways of thinking, different feelings. It's awesome and mind-blowing that Chinese grammar can be so completely different from English. The differences do not make foreign languages impossible- they make them irresistible.

Click here for more posts about learning Mandarin.

What Sin Is. And Is Not.

You say you're a good person, well have you ever told a lie before? Have you lied even one time? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said lust is like adultery- have you ever looked at another person with lust? Jesus said anger is like murder- have you ever been unreasonably angry with someone?

Maybe once or twice? Ahh, see, you are a sinner, deserving of God's judgment.

Hold up. That is not what sin is.

So often when Christians try to explain why people need God, they use this line of reasoning. Have you ever done something mean, even one time in your life? See, you are a sinner.

That's not what sin is.

Why did Jesus come and die for us? Is it because we're all good people who have occasionally made mistakes? Yeah, if it wasn't for that one time when you were 4 years old and you hit your sister and then lied to your parents about it, you'd be good to go- Jesus wouldn't be able to say anything to you.

Remember that road trip from 1995? That's why you're not going to heaven. Image source.

No.

So what is sin? Sin is not an isolated event, an out-of-character mistake. Sin is a moment where my deeply-rooted selfishness, pride, and distrust towards God suddenly breaks through to the surface.

Sin is my realization that the real reason I doubted was I didn't want to obey God. Sin is my lack of respect toward people who disagree with me. Sin is my gut reaction that says I need to get revenge against someone who was mildly rude toward me. Sin is my desire for control over boys- if I have power over them, they can't break my heart. Sin is when I judge people, over and over and over, I judge people and I don't even realize how wrong I am.

Sin is every little pattern in my thoughts and actions that should make me stop and question, "What kind of person am I, when this kind of stuff is coming out of my heart?"

Because I have found, at a very basic fundamental level, I don't want to trust God. And even though I really do want to help people, be a good friend, etc, I also don't want to. It's too much work.

Paul said it best, in Romans 7:21-24. "So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord! ..."

Because the reason I need Jesus to save me is not because due to a set of unusual circumstances, I lied, 10 years ago, and now God has that on my permanent record. I need Jesus to save me from my selfishness every day of my life. I need Jesus to save me because I am the kind of person who can easily become obsessed with money. I need Jesus to save me because some days I just don't feel like caring about other people.

Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John the Baptist was Kind of Obsessed with Fire

John the Baptist was a hippie who talked about fire a lot. Or something like that. Read the story here: Matthew 3.

Here are my thoughts and observations about this passage:

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

This is John's main message. What does it mean? "Repent" means to quit doing bad things, and to completely leave behind that lifestyle.

Is John saying "Hey, you're a bad person. Repent, because God is coming"? I don't like this way of wording it because it's an accusation that seems to come out of nowhere, and people are going to be angry and feel judged.

If I were putting a positive spin on this, I would say, "Do you feel dissatisfied/alone/anxious/stuck/depressed/guilty? God doesn't want you to live that way- God has something way better. Repent of your sin and get ready."

In the context of the culture John was in, how would people have understood his message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"? As condemnation, as an exciting opportunity for change, or maybe something else entirely?

Whatever it was, his message was effective. Verses 5-6 say that "Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan" went to see him and confessed their sins and were baptized. The "all" thing doesn't literally mean every single person who lived there- but still, a ton of people. Evidently, his followers believed that he was right- they needed to repent and get ready for what God was about to do.

"Prepare the way for the Lord"

Matthew says that John the Baptist is the one described by the prophesy in Isaiah 40:3 "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'"

The purpose of John's preaching was to prepare people to follow Jesus. He did this by emphasizing their need to turn from their sin. Perhaps this shows that in order to follow Jesus, we must first be humble enough to recognize our need for God.

Well, did it work? Did John help people find Jesus and believe in him? Yes- years after John's death, his influence was still helping people find Jesus:

Acts 18:24-26

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Acts 19:1-7

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

Both of these passages take place when the church began to grow, after Jesus' death and resurrection. Apollos and these 12 men at Corinth believed in John's message and were baptized by him (or possibly his followers), but they didn't know much about Jesus or the Holy Spirit. However, they knew that John was pointing the way to someone who was supposed to come after him, so when they heard the full story about Jesus, they believed.

Why does Matthew mention that John ate locusts?

This just seems weird. It makes for a good illustration in little-kid bibles, but seriously, why does Matthew include this line about "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey"?

So basically he's a weird hippie/ cult leader...? Was this a publicity stunt? Was he weird so that people would talk about him and maybe come hear what he had to say?

I did a google image search for "eat locusts" and then noped right out of there. Instead, meet Lego John the Baptist. Image source.

John was not a fan of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

He calls them "vipers" and uses some imagery of trees being chopped down and burned. Why?

The Pharisees and Sadducees were the religious leaders, and it seems that John was calling them out because they believed "we have Abraham as our father" so they didn't need to repent. What does he mean by "we have Abraham as our father"? It could refer to their Jewish ancestry, or their obedience to Jewish laws.

John calls them out because they think they know God better than everyone else, and they're so awesome and don't need to repent. He's pretty harsh; this stuff about the trees getting "cut down and thrown into the fire" is scary.

John tells us what Jesus will be like.

In verses 11-12, John predicts that "after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Wow, John talks a lot about fire- a symbol of judgment. Jesus- the one who comes after John- would separate the wheat from the chaff, good people from bad people (however you define "good" or "bad" people...).

The kingdom of heaven is near! Repent, and get a fire extinguisher. Image source.

I don't like to talk about God's judgment. It's real, but it's scary. And it seems that John is saying Jesus is all about judgment. John even judges himself- he says he is not worthy to pick up Jesus' shoes.

Did Jesus come to judge people? In some sense, yes, but when you read the gospels you see Jesus teaching and healing and accepting and loving people- how does this fit in with judgment? I guess we'll find the answer to this as we read further along in the gospel of Matthew.

Jesus' baptism

Then Jesus shows up and wants to get baptized. John tells him this clearly makes no sense, but then Jesus says, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." John had no idea what that meant, so he just went along with it.

Seriously though, what DOES that mean? "Fulfill all righteousness"???

After Jesus gets baptized, the Holy Spirit comes "like a dove" and lands on him, and a voice says "This is my son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's pretty epic and awesome, but what does it mean?

We have the 3 parts of the Trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- coming together, with the Father showing his approval as Jesus starts his ministry.

Does this mean that before his baptism, Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit? So Jesus did not have as much power? Maybe? I don't know the significance of the Spirit coming "like a dove" landing on Jesus.

Why does Jesus need to get baptized?

Because isn't baptism supposed to be about repenting from sin? And Christians believe Jesus did not sin. So... why does he get baptized?

A few reasons I thought of:

1. To set an example for Christians. (Fun fact: I got baptized a year ago.)
2. To show his approval for John's work.
3. As a sign of submission/obedience to God the Father.

Any more reasons?

Summary/ take-home message:

I love how John the Baptist was able to point people to Jesus, and his influence was still there years after his death. I hope that I can also show people who Jesus is- and maybe they won't believe until years later, but that's still awesome.

But I'm uncomfortable with how much John talked about fire and judgment. I don't want to judge people.

Perhaps it is possible to ask people to repent without judging them- without saying I'm better than anyone. John's message to EVERYONE was about their need to repent, and he was harsh only toward the religious people who thought they didn't have to. John even thought of himself as unworthy to carry Jesus' shoes. He warned about God's judgment, but he didn't judge people. If that makes sense.

Christians should take John's warning seriously- do we think we're automatically good, like the Pharisees and Sadducees did? Do we forget our own sin and need for God? Do we think we're better than other people?

And somehow, John's message of repentance and the kingdom of God was exactly what people needed to hear. John prepared the way for Jesus, and I hope I can do that too.

--------------------------------------

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: God became man... and babies died for it (Matthew 2:13-23)

Next post: I Would Only Follow a God Who Was Tempted (Matthew 4:1-11) 

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.