The soul of wit.

Posted by: Julie
in Commentary, Hypocrisy
30
Nov
  1. John 11:35: the shortest verse in the Bible.
  2. Recent Team Pyro blog entry based on that passage: fairly long.

I don’t usually read the Team Pyro blog. A friend, however, emailed and pointed me to that blog post that I linked to above. He commented that it was well-written and moving, until he got to the end where the following paragraph sits:

Pondering the universality of death and the inevitability of it, I have to wonder what certain Emergent leaders could possibly be thinking when they systematically try to downplay the hope of heaven and urge Christians to be more concerned with earthly matters.

Here is a stirring post about the death of a friend from cancer, tied in to the pain Jesus felt at his friend’s death, and that little zinger at some other Christian camp is the chosen denouement.

For those of you calling for more scripture, simply follow the link to John 11:35, read two words, and see if, out of all of that, you can come up with what Team Pyro managed to eke out.Or this time, perhaps, a full passage of scripture (which lends the context of the story but is generally not favored to the “give me a proof verse!” crowd) might be more beneficial. In that case, John 11.

One of my favorite passages about Jesus, is John 11.

Granted, Team Pyro provided links for more scripture, including the very powerful John 11:25-26, but oddly enough, following that link brings me right back to Team Pyro’s blog post. What is the message to the reader, or the person who stumbles there unaware, when scripture links back not to the scripture referenced but to the blog post?

Jesus wept.

From that verse, or even the whole passage, I do not find any ammunition to go after Catholics, Baptists, Emergents, Pentecostals, or the Church of God. Instead, I find that it is acceptable to cry, and to not be happy all the time. If there is anything that all of humanity knows, it is to weep.

I have no doubt that Team Pyro was not trying to be witty, considering the close and dear subject matter of the post. However, a very brief verse inspired a fairly long blog post in which it sounds to me as if Team Pyro wasn’t exactly relying upon Sola Scripture to make a few leaps:

Have you ever wondered why He was weeping? It could not be just grief over the loss of Lazarus, because He was about to bring Lazarus back to life. Yet it’s clear from Scripture that His tears signified real sorrow.

So what was He mourning about?

Surely He was grieving over the effects of sin on people He loved. He was sorrowing over the ravages of evil on His creation. He was thus identifying with those whom He loved, even in their anguish.

All that, from “Jesus wept.” It sounds to me as if there is a little deciphering, putting into context, imagining, trying to relate scripture to life as we know it, a little divining — any of those things, which commonly get nailed by any responsible ODM when someone like Warren or McManus or Bell or any other favored whipping boy lifts a few verses and interprets them what he believes them to mean.

Perhaps, rather than gloating or priding themselves on “being right”, they ought to be weeping more, if they truly believe all of these other Christians are not truly saved. The tone of their blogs, their writing, their responses, their entire being — if they really feel as Team Pyro seemed to feel at the beginning of the post — should be more about about weeping than cutting.

How can anyone use words like “grieving” and “sorrowing” and “anguish”, and within four paragraphs, show that peculiar arrogance the self-appointed remnant so unabashedly reek? My email response to the friend who originally pointed out the Team Pyro post was much shorter than this:

“Jesus wept” is the shortest verse in the Bible, yet he managed to read a whole pile of theology into the reasoning behind his weeping, and then use that to zing his theological adversaries.

I know why Jesus might weep.

Perhaps there is a reason why that verse is so short, why much was left unsaid. Brevity is powerful and all-encompassing and easily misused by those looking for quick weaponry.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, November 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm and is filed under Commentary, Hypocrisy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

42 Comments(+Add)

1   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
November 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Julie,

I agree with you that you can’t take one proofing verse and exegete it to that point. That was stretching and adding to the point where it was like fitting a watermellon through an eye of a needle, or adding sugar to sugar.

With that said, I do feel inclined to agree with them that Jesus wasn’t weeping over Lazarus being dead, as He was going to raise him to life (but Jesus in His humanity, could have been weeping over that, I can see that too). But I am more apt to agree that He was weeping over death in general, sin, and all of those terrible things not originally intended for His creation. That’s a reasonable deduction, but not required by the text. It just makes me feel good, lol!

The stab at the end towards emergents is completely unnecessary, snide, and un-christian in attitude. That’s like me saying…

“Modern medicine is amazing, it saves so many lives, it is a great gift from God……Omish people stupid.”

Joe

2   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
November 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Or is it Amish?

3   nc    
November 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Ya know, it’s not about the conclusions really…

it’s about who is doing the concluding.

Certain tools in certain hands are automatically accepted.

What.
Ever.

4   merry    
November 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Jesus weeping shows his humanity and emotions. Who knows what he was weeping about? He could have been thinking about his own upcoming death (as there are a few parallels between Lazarus’s experience and Jesus’s). Or he could have been thinking about how people were going to overanalyze John 11:35. (Hee hee.) ;)

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Jesus was weeping over the coming departure from the teachings of His servant John Calvin. It’s in the original.

6   nc    
November 30th, 2007 at 10:27 pm

to paraphrase Luther:

He was weeping as he saw his Father cutting switches for the back sides of those who hypocritically mangle Scripture for their own purposes while accusing others of the same…

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
November 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

In truth His tears contained compasion. The objects of that compassion are universal and it should be emulated. One of the remarkable aspects of today’s Christianity is the lack of compassionate tears. We no longer weep for friends much less enemies to say nothing of the lost.

We are self aborbed with Martha’s kitchen while the things of Mary take too much from our daytimer. I weep sometimes but most times I am a dry-eyed hypocrite who verbally espouses a theology that should elicit tears but usually doesn’t. I attribute it all to the cares of this world that have won the competition for much of my time.

I wish I was like Mary but I resemble Martha most of the time. Jesus wept but we do not. Hmmm…the question is not why did He weep but why don’t we…

8   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
November 30th, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Its an interesting question. The answer may tell us more about each other than about Jesus.

I’m a big proponent of he wept because of the death of his friend. Death sucks, even if its just for a little while and ultimately it is a little while for all of us Jesus-followers, but it still sucks.

9   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 12:10 am

I see it, from the context, as Jesus weeping for the friends still living and the pain they had experienced and were experiencing. If Jesus can’t focus on, and weep for, individuals in emotional or physical pain, only taking in the big, though detached, picture, then was he really human?

Jesus didn’t weep for the dead, but for the living.

As for TeamPyro:

Pondering the universality of death and the inevitability of it, I have to wonder what certain Emergent leaders could possibly be thinking when they systematically try to downplay the hope of heaven and urge Christians to be more concerned with earthly matters.

Is it really downplaying the hope of heaven to focus on our mission – which is in service to others, being a blessing to them as we have been blessed so that they will know that our God is the One true God? Or is it focusing us on the task at hand, because we have no fear of the world to come, because our faith is in the One who has complete control over that?

Should we be obsessed with what will happen then and there, when what we have been given to work with is here and now? If our focus is obsessively on the eternal, we will miss the opportunity to be what Jesus was and what we were commanded to be…

10   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 1st, 2007 at 2:55 am

Right now, the pingback signifying “Links to this post” is over there. I’ll be interested to see how long it lasts. Phil apparently likes to “Schlueter” ping-backs from posts of which he doesn’t approve.

11   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 8:20 am

Schlueter: (shloo’-tur)
VERB:

“To expunge from existence any opinion not in lock-step with your own.”

ex: The commenter disagreed with him, so Kenneth schluetered the comment.

12   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am

The Pyro entry isn’t about the John passage, but about death, and the passage in John is referenced, as are a few others.

As far as the comment about some EC leaders downplaying Heaven, I think there was a place here which discussed Pagitt’s interview on WotM, and his attempts to make any talk of Heaven and Hell being real places as some kind of “Platonism”. What else was Pagitt doing, but downplaying Heaven?

13   nc    
December 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am

Schlueteristic.

Schluetered.

Schluetering.

hmmmm….a new word in the lexicon

14   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm

“Schluetered” is too close to “neutered” for my liking.

Which opens a whole other can of gender/ministry worms.

15   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Chris L, that’s a good definition, but it’s not exactly what I had in mind. Since Ingrid usually moderates comments, stuff that’s not in lock-step with her rarely makes it into her meta in the first place.

To “Schlueter” something (at least in my lexicon) is to eradicate from existence something that did exist for some time. Ingrid has “Schlueter’d” her own posts on occasion.

16   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
December 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Good post, Julie. I was the one exchanging emails with Julie about this.

A couple of comments.

It was not the author of John who divided the book into chapters and verses, so the brevity of that particular verse is man made, not God inspired, so I don’t think we should make too much out of the fact that it is the shortest verse in the Bible.

He wept. And that is what happened, and why leave not leave it at that. A good friend of my bloggged that sometimes God’s Word is descriptive, not prescriptive. We think that we are fostering spiritual depth through digging into detailed minutia, but we often end up with meaningless drivel. We end up saying more about our biases than why Jesus wept.

My ex-girlfriend wept often, and I could not possibly figure out why. I was not a mind reader even though she expected me to as most women do with their men. She seldom told me why she cried (not trying to hijack the thread here, but the point is I am not a mind reader. Nobody is).

How can we possibly claim to have figured out the mind of the Son of God based on something he did 2,000 years ago. I was not there, and even if I were, I am not sure if I could have figured out why he wept.

Jesus wept. That is what happened. The Bible never told us why he wept. He wept. Why not leave it at that?

17   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Pointing out that it was the shortest verse was not because I do not realize the man-made divisions of the Bible into verse/chapter, but rather as a writing device and a way to contrast how we take the least amount of information and blow it up into something too large. Hence, “shortest verse, long blog post” comparison.

That’s all.

18   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I am glad to see so much exegetical evidence for such a refutation of a very qualified biblical teacher, Phil Johnson. Wait, never mind that was Phil’s article with the actual constructive exegesis…

19   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Dave,

Phil makes Jesus something much less than human in his ‘imaginings’. And then to toss in a nonsequitir at emergents was just petty.

If that’s “constructive”, I’d hate to see “nonconstructive”…

20   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pm

…very qualified biblical teacher…

Curious.

What does it take to be considered a “very qualified biblical teacher” and, once listing those qualifications, are you certain that people you disagree with couldn’t also be considered “very qualified”?

Unless, of course, one of the qualifications happens to be “a person I agree with.”

Is it only possible to disagree with a “very qualified biblical teacher” if a person can parry with equal “qualification”? Please list all the Biblical resources where it points out “very qualified biblical teachers” and any instance where a person who may not have such qualifications was prohibited from pointing out a possible hypocrisy in both intent and content.

I see by a visit to your blog that you are a “graduate Maranatha Baptist Bible College. I am currently pursuing a graduate degree in Biblical studies. I enjoy biblical Greek; I have a special passion for Pauline literature.”

Are you “very qualified”?

I have a degree in art and art history. From a state university. I’ve traveled overseas to many countries. I’ve had a huge variety of odd jobs that involved interacting with every kind of person imaginable in both serving and leading positions. I live on a farm. I play piano at a church and have a special passion for just reading the Bible. Am I qualified?

I would very much like to know what it takes to be considered “qualified” enough in order to point out what I see as an error in a teacher, whether he be “very qualified” or not.

Perhaps I can’t exegete to your satisfaction. Perhaps I lack the official, papered, Bible Education that you have that has put all kinds of words and tools at your disposal. Is that, again, listed somewhere in the Bible as some kind of requirement for entering into a discussion on Biblical things?

Methinks the name “clearly” is a misnomer.

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Julie – That was a very well organized and presented thought that echoed Paul’s words that “those that seemed somewhat in conference added nothing to me”. I resist those who claim private interpretation because of some title.

Qualified = he agrees with me.

22   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Clearly, for all your love of Pauline literature, you should know that you do not, indeed, see clearly, but through a glass darkly.

There are things you do not understand clearly, and both thinking and/or claiming that you do is foolishness.

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Hey, before we dive into Biblical Greek how about we do better about obeying the English. I still have a long way to go.

24   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 6:22 pm

There was a time when the Judaizers questioned Paul’s credentials as a minister of the gospel. They asked for a letter of recommendation. Paul pretty much told them, “Forget your red tape — the only credentials that I need are changed lives of the Corinthians.” Think about it, those who were once thieves and drunkards — are now new creatures in Christ because of the ministry with which Paul empowered God (see 2 Corinthians 2-5).

That being said, I don’t think I have to remind you of the amazing ministry of Grace Community Church — think about it, they minister in Southern California and God is greatly using them. That has nothing to do with college or graduate education.

That being said, however, Phil’s article was grounded in theology, and true to the biblical text. It seemed to me that the gist of your post was “he sure extrapolated a lot out of a two word verse.” The more you know about Scripture, the more you have to say about it. My first sermon was in family devotions. I read Matthew 28:19-20 and then said, “okay, go do it.” I have learned a lot since then and could now actually give a challenge on the Great Commission. Phil’s studies have given him insight into the biblical text in this regard.

In my opinion, such a dismissal of his claims should have been more grounded with Scriptural arguments from another position.

25   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 6:24 pm

oops, “the ministry with which Paul empowered God.” that’s not what I meant!

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Let’s see how well this argument flies when we’re talking about Rob Bell:

That being said, I don’t think I have to remind you of the amazing ministry of Mars Hill Bible Church — think about it, they minister in Grand Rapids, Michigan and God is greatly using them. That has nothing to do with college or graduate education.

If it’s a good enough measure for Johnnie Mac and his toadies, it ought to be good enough for Rob Bell… (removing tongue from cheek)

27   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Dave, by your observations about the breadth of Grace Church’s ministry then Warren’s would eclipse MacArthurs. I am sure you mispoke, and Julie’s point was that Phil got more out of two words than the Bible ever gives insight to. That is what some emergents do as well.

Just because Johnson is connected to Grace is very irrelevant as well.

28   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pm

So, the Catholic church is huge too…I’m talking about real, transformed lives…

29   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 6:42 pm

So was I.

Somehow, though, the “I have a big, godly church and therefore I must be right” defense rings hollow.

30   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Rick Warren can claim more even if you do away with any suspect salvations. Numbers have nothing to do with truth. Mre people have come to Christ under Bill Graham (me also) than any man in history, so does that mean his views are more true?

31   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Rick,

I am not going to be badgered. You read 2 Corinthians 3:1-6 and tell me what Paul is saying.

My Father was also saved under Billy Graham and as a result I too was exposed to the gopsel and saved at a young age. Same is true of Graham, I wouldn’t attack his views without very careful interpretation.

32   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
December 1st, 2007 at 7:05 pm

clearly:

“real, transformed lives…”

are in the eye of the beholder.

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 7:07 pm

No one is badgering you. Phil Johnson’s interpretation of John 11:35 is no more or less authoritative as anyone else’s regardless of his church affiliation. There are giftings of teachings but every believer can glean spiritual truth from the Scriptures.

I disagree with many of Billy Graham’s views. Phil Johnson is a good teacher but no more authoritative than Chris Lyons. God is no repecter of persons and the guys at Pyro have become obsessed with criticism even when they have a point.

They even cull out of Spurgeon’s sermons ones that will buttress their point of that day. Anyone can disagree with anyone else on Biblical doctrine and a man’s pedigree doesn’t insulate him from doctrinal discourse. I believe that was one of Julie’s points.

34   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
December 1st, 2007 at 7:17 pm

clearly:

“That being said, I don’t think I have to remind you of the amazing ministry of Grace Community Church ”

That also is in the eye of the beholder. It depends on who you talk to.

You are not even trying to hide your biases, and present them as fact. That may play resonate within the walls of GCC where everybody pretty much shares your mindset and your assumptions.

Not outside the walls. It’s a big world out there.

I was in and around GCC for 8 years through college and after. Bought the notion that GCC was a world renowned church and an object of envy around the world.

Then left their because of a job for Orange County which is just an hour drive. Very few people had heard of GCC, much less John MacArthur.

You have your opinions and biases, and so do I. It makes you look foolish to present them as fact. The “amazing ministry” of GCC is reflective of how you feel about it. Don’t tell us how we should feel about it.

35   Reverend Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Uh-oh, Dave made a bad argument and got caught! Get off your self imposed self righteous high horse and admit that either:
a. Your argument doesn’t hold water or
b. Mars Hill Grand Rapids is being used of God.
I can parade person after person to you who has had their life transformed by the ministry of Rob and our church. But I don’t have to do that. On your own blog is/was a comment from a friend of yours where he talked about how his life had been changed by Rob’s ministry and you discredited his statements.
Now, do your 25 push-ups (I know you just thought about them) and look honestly at your argument.

36   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Uh oh, someone’s full of.. er, uh, wit.

37   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pm

“toadies”

I haven’t seen that word in a while.

38   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Joe, I would be glad to admit that by argument doesn’t hold water, if someone would offer a counter-interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:1-6. This is the second time I have asked. I feel I got it straight from the text, the authority. My other “out” is that I while I believe Mars Hill has changed lives, I do not believe it has produced the change of 2 Corinthians 3:18. I believe that insomuch as the Bible is presented accurately (and with some of the sermons I have heard that woudl be the case, although others have left me grieved) at Mars Hill, people will grow.

You should try the push-up thing. I have gotten a bit behind this week, but I really need to add a disclaimer about other people because friends will stop me and ask me if I have done them:)

39   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 1st, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Dave,
I truly have thought about doing the push up thing. Do you want to have a friendly competition to see who can do the most consecutive days?
Now, to your argument. I agree your first argument is very plausible given Scripture. What I’m saying is that if you truly believe that then you have to give Mars Hill the same treatment. Now, with your second “out” you’re entitled to it, however it comes down to your opinion. I could introduce you to friends who’s lives have been transformed here but it doesn’t sound as it would matter.

40   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 1st, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Joe – it might end up contradicting Johnnie Mac’s opinion, as well.

From God’s mouth to his lips…

41   nc    
December 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm

RE: GCC

Having lived in proximity to that church I can say that it’s rep is mixed. Even with “conservatives”. The congregation has its own share of problems with being perceived as arrogant, quick on the trigger judgemental, etc.

It’s all who you talk to…

And that’s with people who’ve actually heard of it.

42   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
December 1st, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Joe,

I like competition.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. Musings from Two-Sheds Gomer » Blog Archive » you guys are fighting over WHAT?    Dec 01 2007 / 10pm:

    [...] HT to CRN.Info Tags: TeamPyro, death, sin, Christ, Christian, Emergent, Fred Phelps, Paul Proctor, Ingrid Schlueter   [link] [...]

Back to top