The dark back story of the Christmas nativity scene

The birth of Jesus, often celebrated by many Protestants and Christians in the West and the East, is usually regarding as a festival of joy. However, beyond the joy and fanfare of this event, is a hidden and dark back story, which I will reflect on in this blog post. (And no, this post is not about the pagan origin).

While I was brought up not to celebrate the event, I have decided not to exclude myself from events where Christians reflect on the event or story central to the faith and recorded in the Christian Scriptures. I have indeed gotten weary of the rhetoric of "othering" done by Christians to exclude other Christians, and feel that even Jesus himself would have gone to a Christmas service in his honour, regardless of the time and season, even if it was not his birthday. As Matthew 18:20 suggests, "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (NIV).

That said, I discovered the dark and hidden story behind the nativity scene when I painted a picture depicting the scene and later told the story to parents and children at church. Then I attended a carol service with my children and further reflected on the story. I discovered, that while we often see the nativity as a scene for celebration, of joy, hope and peace, we ignore the dark back story of exclusion that precipitated it.

For Mary and Joseph to have their baby in stable or barn, they were first denied access to housing. The Bible is silent about the circumstances leading to that unavailability of housing, especially for a pregnant lady due to give birth. It is often portrayed that the city was full and perhaps overcrowded at that time. Yet it seems strange that this would have been Joseph's home city or town and that he would have virtually no friends or family still living there to stay with. That he would have to go to an inn, the equivalent of our modern-day hospital, motel, or hotel, was a sign it itself of something very sad.

There seems to be a darker side under the story where Joseph had to resort to an inn to provide housing and shelter for his wife. It wasn't just that Mary and Joseph could not find a room. It was that friends and relatives of Joseph were not willing to have them stay with them. Maybe they inquired about the marital status. You know the way that your relatives and friends would ask you why they were not invited to the wedding if you showed up at their house with a pregnant lady, especially within a religious and ceremonial society. Further, the inn keepers may also have inquired about marital status and rejected room to them based on the issue on the grounds of "fornication".

This is the dark back story of religious intolerance where those who were religious felt that this couple were "sinners" to be denied access to housing suitable for humans due to the gravity of the perceived sin. Even friends and relatives were ready to dissociate themselves from their own flesh and blood so that he would need to wander the streets to find lodging among strangers. That Joseph would be forced to spend money to secure a room, in an era where home birth by midwives was more normative than it is today, for his fiancée rather than lodge for free with those whom he knew for years and with whom he grew up is indeed sad. No one wanted anything to do with him nor his pregnant fiancée at this point of need. Could it be so bad that the only room they qualified to access was a room stinking of animals and animal manure? A far from hygienic place for bloodletting and delivering a baby?

Far from being a story of joy, I feel the pain and sorrow of Joseph. No wonder God the Father and the angels decided to cheer them up by sending a welcoming party of shepherds. God had to provide some people to welcome the couple as well as to let them know how special they were to God. 

Does the New Testament do away with distinctions between clean and unclean meat?

If there is one thing that I dislike, it is the dishonest handling of the Scriptures. This is usually done when persons have a belief that they want to justify and employ finding a text in the Scriptures to support or justify their opinion with total disregard for the context surrounding the verse. Sometimes, this dishonesty happens accidentally due to persons not knowing better. But whether an honest error or deliberate intent, this is what happened last week when I attended a sermon about clean and unclean meats last Saturday (September 24, 2016).

While I admit that I am mostly vegan and have been raised to eschew shellfish and pork, I was disturbed when the preacher tried to reinterpret 1st Corinthians 10:27 in a way to support his position that the verse did not justify the position that the New Testament had done away with distinctions between clean and unclean meat. While the general principle is correct, the preacher's interpretation was not.

The verse in question reads thus:

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. (New International Version [NIV])

The preacher's interpretation was to ignore the word "unbeliever" and explain that if he went to a church brother's house and meat is served, he will eat it and not ask questions because he expects that the church brother would have served clean meat. This drove me bananas, as my mind stated "but the verse just said unbelievers".

To be fair, my preacher guy, who is otherwise a nice gentleman, was not the only one to upset me with the abuse of the Scriptures in relation to clean and unclean meats. Earlier in the month, as I attended my university's mid-week chapel service, another preacher upset my spirit using the Roman 14:3

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. (NIV)

Likewise, this scripture was applied to present day context with various religions in which different people from different cultures eat different types of meat. Despite the preacher's intentions, I was offended that Scripture was being used to support a position taken without the proper explanation of the context of the verse. As such, both of these experiences motivated me to dig a little, of which I present my findings.

Contextualizing 1st Century Christians and their meat eating dilemma

While we are far removed the context of early Christianity, there is sufficient historical information for us to reconstruct the context surrounding first century Christians and their meat eating dilemma. We know that the early church was conceived in the era of the Roman Empire. As such, we can pretty much determine the dietary customs of the time. Any encyclopedia article on this can give you an idea of what meats were available and the choices that Christians had if they wanted to purchase meat from the butchers.


As Price puts it, while first century Christians living in Palestine would be able to access kosher meats, those outside of predominantly Jewish territory had to face the problem of purchasing meats sacrificed to idols. Pagan worshipers, after offering meat sacrifices, would burn a portion and sell the leftovers or excess meat to local meat shops (Price 270). In Corinth, in particular, Price explains that  sometimes idol temples and meat market shops were sometimes joined together to facilitate this market transfer in a more efficient manner. (Also bear in mind that these were the days without refrigerators, with implications for meat storage and preservation.)

Also bear in mind that in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council had decreed that all Christians, including non-Jewish Christians, were to abstain from eating meat with blood in it, meat sacrificed to idols and meat where the animals were strangled (Acts 15:20). Also bear in mind that Paul reiterated this point:

19Am I suggesting, then, that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons too.…(1 Corinthians 10:19-21).

While Paul did not want his church members to eat meals in honor of pagan deities, he did permit them to eat meat sold in the market place without asking if it came from temple rituals. In 1 Corinthians 10: 25 he encourages them to "eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,"(NIV). It appears that Paul interpreted the Jerusalem Council a bit liberally and encouraged the Corinth believers to obey the decree so as to not offend others.

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God. 32Do not become a stumbling block, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, (1 Corinthians 10:31)

As such, from the context and Paul's instructions, it is implicit that the Corinthians would purchase meat that would not offend the Jews. In this regard, I would argue that the believers would know the meat standards of the Jews and as such would not purchase foods that knowingly violate the standards. In addition, Paul wanted the believers to also not offend the Greeks. As such, he wanted them not to ask divisive questions while purchasing their meat at the market. Crocker, in a commentary on this, states that to maintain good relations with non-Christians in the community, some members of the church might attend the banquets to socialize or as part of their work relations (137). Within this context, in a city like Corinth, the meat served at such banquets would likely come from "temple slaughter" since farms and countrysides for raising livestock would not be located within the city (Crocker 137).

Given that context, Paul declares that

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience (1 Corinthians 10:27)

As such, while Paul suggests that eating in the market place is okay, there is kind of a discouraging tone suggested by a dubious "if" for going to an unbeliever to share a meal, followed by "and you want to go". As Staton describes it, Paul was attempting to help the Corinthians solve the meat sacrificed to idols problem (186). To do so, Paul suggested purchasing meat in the market without asking if it was sacrificed to idols or demons was okay (Staton 186). However, if the believer was not in the market place environment, then the situation called for careful evaluation (Staton 186). Paul explicitly warns the believers not to eat meat at a meal that is part of a pagan worship service, where the consumption of such meat is in recognition of a pagan deity (Staton 186).

Conclusion

As we can see from the evidence presented, there is more to the context than my two preachers acknowledged. In particular, the context of Paul's writings has nothing to do with whether or not Christians are permitted to eat pork or shellfish. As such, these Scriptures do not justify any position on whether or not modern Christians should or should not eat unclean meats. Rather, the discussion is about a particular problem that is unrelated to our present day dilemma about whether or not the New Testament does away with the obligation to distinguish between clean and unclean meats. In my estimation, the New Testament does not abolish this distinction, but deals instead with another problem completely foreign to most Western Christians.


References

Crocker, Cornelia C. Reading 1 Corinthians in the Twenty-First Century. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. Print.

Price, Brad. First Corinthians Bible Commentary.. United States: Brad Price, 2010. Print.

Staton, Knofel. First Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000. Print.

The great commission for education

Sabbath, May 14, 2016 - Andrews Memorial SDA Church - Morning service

I had the blessing of hearing one of my favourite Jamaican pastors, Pastor Lorenzo King, speak in a sermon entitled "Commission to reach: Commission to teach". One of the reasons why I like this pastor is that he comes with new or fresh statements or thoughts on what seems to be material that I have heard for decades. There are very little cliches in his sermons or recycled sayings. He is not just going to preach on what we already know, but he is going to challenge the canon of what we know and bring new revelations, doing something new with the Christian or Adventist Christian material or content. In this post, I wish to share bits from his sermon and the message that resonated well with me on that Sabbath.

King made a series of comments that I wrote down for meditation. Beginning with Matthew's Great Commission (the well known Matthew 28:18-20), King stated that the great gospel commission could be equated as a great commission to educate. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations..." is as much a commission to education as it is to preaching, King said.

He then went on to state that ignorance and belief in God are incompatible. That Christ in his commission desires us to be educated and to be educators educating others. Part of the commission, King said, is for us as believers to "go" which indicates "movement and departure from our comfort zone, both physically and non-physical".

King mentioned that as part of that movement we are not to stick to only one field of knowledge (or remain stuck in what we already know). Instead, King admonished that we must go to and fro, interacting with different bodies or fields of knowledge. In his example, King stated, "there is as much science as art in the playing of a musical instrument."

King then made the point that Jesus had a particular worldview, or vision of the world, where all the world or nations of the earth would be united around and exposed to the same teachings. "The entire world is to be held together by the same teachings, the teachings of Jesus. Wouldn't it be great if the world was united around the teachings of Jesus? "

King goes on to argue that education should not be elitist. "The knowledge of God is to be universal. The knowledge of God is for everyone (or every creature), no matter how degraded the person." As such, King concluded that education should not just be for those who can afford it, but must necessarily be universal.

"It is Jesus who first had the vision for universal education and espoused the belief that everyone can learn, and as such that everyone can be taught"

The purpose of education, according to King, is to remove the lines of demarcation among human beings, as "we are all (or should be) related to each other on the basis of our need for learning".

My 5 suggestions for improving the Jamaican Political Process

Traditionally, as a Christian believer, I have been ambivalent about the role that I should play in the political and electoral process of a country. My positions on the matter have fluctuated from non-participation to participating as a worker. In addition, I have also fluctuated in beliefs as to whether or not Christians should run for political office. However, my current position (which can change due to personal experience) is that participation in the political process is currently the only way to safeguard rights and freedoms gained from centuries where Christians were once the persecuted minority. Biblical precedents for participation in public and political sphere include public presentation to authorities by the apostles of not only what they believe, but also what they have experienced and witnessed. For example, Acts 5:17-32, contains a narrative of how the apostles were instructed to publicly declare their lifestyle in the public sphere. So if not to run for office, at best, the Christian should share his or her personal experiences in the public sphere with the intent of it impacting the authorities. Given this precedent, one of the ways that Christians can make a statement is to vote and perhaps testify of why they are voting and the personal experiences that lead to their voting.

Nonetheless, for this post, I will not go that far. Rather, I will limit my statement to five things that I feel will make Jamaica's electoral process better. All of these have come out of my experience and reflections of this 2016 Jamaican electoral process:

1. Mandatory electoral debates that are put on by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica that include third party candidates. This way, no party can opt out of being asked pertinent questions by the media and population. This will give us the people the opportunity to evaluate our leaders and political candidates by their performance in responding to questions and issues.
2. Separate the Member of Parliament (MP) vote from the vote for Prime Minister (PM). One may wish to reward his or her MP with another term for the good work done or, at least, the effort while at the same time may be disapproving of the PM's performance (or vice versa). Why are we forced to have one vote for two persons to represent us? 
3. Declaration of the financial contributions to each political party helps. Especially funding by the overseas or foreign donors and monied interest. 
4. Improve the enumeration process so that it is easy, quick and more efficient. For this, I recommend setting up an appointment system where persons wishing to be enumerated call and negotiate an appointed time. This way, the person arrives promptly at the scheduled time and does not have to wait, but is dealt with within 30 minutes. Clearly, the process must respect people's time so that busy professionals will be more willing to be enumerated.
5. Perhaps a bit idealistic? Air-conditioned shuttle bus transport to and from the polling stations on the day of the election? Especially for the poorer classes that do not have the fares or personal transport to visit the polling stations. Mark you, they can walk, but considering that they may have to stand in line to exercise their franchise in the warm Jamaican sun, we could lessen the time and sun exposure involved in the voting process.

An Adventist Church leader "gets" the young adults

I generally do not like to discuss a specific church or denomination in my blog, because I am not one to endorse any institutionalized way for practicing Christianity. However, I was impressed by a recent editorial and article by the Canadian Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Editor, Halsey Peat in the newsletter Ontario Highlights. In the Autumn/Winter 2014 edition of the Ontario Highlights, Peat pens two articles, which I will briefly summarize in this post and give a few comments on.

In the first article, entitled "Multi-Generational Churches or Seniors' Centres?" Peat expresses concern about the departure of the youth and the young adults from the church. In part of his editorial, Peat also points out what he feels is the problem with the church that is contributing to this:

We [SDAs] have sought to remain unchanged in a world that is constantly changing. We look to the past as if they were the glorious days, failing to recognise the struggles that our pioneers and those after them had to go through...we have stubbornly, and maybe even arrogantly, considered that our pioneers resolved every issue and question, so we default to regurgitating their answers. There seems to be a reticence to examine our beliefs and practices in light of twenty-first century North America. Meanwhile, our youths and young adults are scrutinizing what they see and hear in the church. Some will pick and choose what makes sense to them, ignoring what does not, but remain in the church. Others, what seems to be the majority, simply leave, discarding everything. (p. 2)

I believe Peat has hit the nail on the head. As a young adult myself, I have chosen to remain in the church community despite objecting to the way church is done. I see them putting out evangelistic meetings that have no relevance to my peers and the questions that my peers ask. Time and time in this blog, I have had to highlight some of these problems which are not just specific to the SDA church, but to Christian denominations that I am aware of. I feel that most Christian churches today are out of touch with the young adults and the youth and the spiritual challenges to faith in a secular world and a world increasingly hostile to Christian culture.

Peat goes on in another brilliant article to address young adults like me about why stay in the SDA church and how to go about reforming it. In his article, "For Young Adults Only", Peat begins with a lengthy introduction that indicates that he is in touch with the young adults in the church:

I f you are a young adult reading this, you’re doing so because you are still attending the church in which you were most probably raised. I’m glad that you are still there because you know of friends who no longer attend. For one reason or another, they ceased attending church, but you remained. 

I’m glad you remained, but will you stay? I sincerely hope so. I hope that you have recognised the truth that even though your church is imperfect, God still works through it for the good of His people. Yes, on occasion, it is even frustrating in how it addresses your concerns, and how it relates to contemporary society, but it is still a place where there is potential for you to grow, flourish and be happy to call home. 

Part of the frustration, I know, is with the word potential. Everything always seem to be in the future. Meanwhile, you feel side-lined, unimportant, unappreciated, and undervalued. Like your teen brothers and sisters, it can sometimes seem as if you are only appreciated when you fit the cultural stereotype of an Adventist in appearance, accepted behaviour pattern, and you use the clichés and jargon of Adventism. 

Over the years, while conversing with young adults, I arrived at a conclusion, shared by many of my generation, that you love the Lord. I learned that you are in this church because you believe, and you want to participate in its mission. You seek spirituality, but you do not necessarily believe that spirituality is determined by traditional views and practices. You want your church to be relevant to your community. You want it to be such a welcoming and relevant place that you will gladly invite your friends to attend with you. However, you’re often reluctant to invite them because of how embarrassed you’d feel by what sometimes happens on a Sabbath morning. So, you wait for change. 

Waiting for change is never easy. It can be very frustrating because just when it looks like it’s about to happen, something seems to derail it. Some of your former friends gave up waiting and left, but you do not want to leave truth for error. You’re very aware that when people separate themselves from fellowship, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain spiritual disciplines and practice. Over time, there is a distancing, not only from the practices of a Christian but from its principles, and ultimately from God. Yet, you wait for the church to change. (p.10-11)

 Once again, Peat is on target. No need for me to add to his words, as he said exactly how I feel about church and Christianity on a whole. Yet, make no mistake. I do appreciate my seniors and the work they have done even teach me the elementary stuff and preserve faith so that I could learn about it today. And I am happy that they have kept track of the history and preserved it for me so that I can know the evolution of faith and where we are coming from.

In fact, for as much as I have protested and critiqued Roman (if not Western) Christianity, I still respect it. In fact, I greatly appreciate that Roman Christianity took on Paul's revolutionary theology of becoming relevant to the culture in order to conquer the culture. According to the letter to Corinth, the multi-cultural Paul argues his theological method:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version [NIV])

I feel that Roman Christianity, by adopting this theological position made Christianity malleable, and therefore appropriated whatever it could from national or popular cultures in order to evangelize and win converts to the religion. And so far, this approach to spreading Christianity has been the most successful to date.Whereas Judeo-Christianity (or Jewish Christianity) failed to convert Jewish rabbinic schools and perished for a while after the destruction of Jerusalem, Roman Christianity converted the entire Roman empire, from Britain to Northern Africa.

Today, I recognize the same Roman Christianity principles in the present day Pope. Assimilate some of what the modern day culture and secular world see as good or reasonable in order to win them. While I may disagree on some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church accepts as not contradicting with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, I do realize that the church is merely pursuing a theology of adapting to its world in order to remain relevant.

So I welcome Peat's message and will try to be optimistic that at least a few adults in the church do understand the young adults and will listen to them. Nonetheless, I feel pessimistic that SDA church traditions will change anytime soon. Especially when I think of my experiences in rural Jamaican Adventism, where laymen cling to reading only the King James Version of the Bible and indoctrinate the youth into conspiracy theories about how Jesuits are trying to infiltrate the Adventist church and seminaries.

References:

Peat, H. (2014). Multi-generational churches or seniors' centres?  Ontario Highlights Autumn/Winter 2014, 2.

Peat, H. (2014). For young adults only. Ontario Highlights Autumn/Winter 2014, 10-11.

God's message to me for the last Sabbath of 2014

On December 26, 2014, I celebrated my eighth anniversary with my wife, Fiona. It was in the spring of 2011 that our marriage was put to a test with my having to migrate to study in Canada. Thankfully, we passed that test and are both celebrating today in Canada more committed to each other. However, I have sought from God the vision for our family for 2015 and beyond. And he has begun to answer.

On the last Sabbath of December 27, 2014 or of the Gregorian calendar, I got the same message from God that I received during my 2014 Feast of Trumpets season. From Sabbath school, to the songs sung by the singers for special music, to the sermon from the appointed speaker. The message was consistent, in that God is calling me to plunge deeper into my spiritual life with him and move beyond just believing the testimonies of others to becoming one with testimonies to give to others.

You see, God makes himself invisible unto us a human beings and cannot be accessed through our scientific empirical methods. However, he makes himself available to us via the route of faith. While he has left evidence in nature to reveal himself, he has always chosen to reveal himself after our sin in Eden to a few persons, who serve as witnesses that testify of his existence. These witnesses are sent to help us interpret the visible evidence in nature and in life. So, for example, God called Noah to be his witness to tell persons that God was about to act and send a flood.

However, God leaves human beings only with the physical evidence and the testimony of his witnesses to make a decision. However, for those who are willing to believe the testimony of his witnesses, God takes them to another step, revealing more of himself to them personally and awarding them for their faith in the testimonies or witnesses. This is what happened in the early church in Acts, when the apostles testified of Christ, and the Lord gave the Holy Spirit to those who believed their testimony, so that they too could experience God for themselves.

The New Testament evangelists basically provide two verses that help to define what faith is. First of all, faith comes by hearing (Romans 10: 16-18). It is listening carefully and attentively to a testimony. Secondly, faith is the evidence of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Basically, witnesses are people who have heard or seen things, that they tell about or report on in order to help persons interpret evidence and make judgments. This is what Peter and John declared when a Jewish Council sought to forbid them from preaching Jesus (Acts 4:19-20). According to Peter and John stated "we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20, English Standard Version/ESV).

In fact, in Acts 1:8 Jesus proclaimed to his disciples that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit arrived and shall be his witnesses"both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (NASB95). Further, in Acts, Jesus mirrors a prophetic passage in Isaiah 43: 8-11 (King James Version /KJV):

⁸ Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.
⁹ Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.
¹⁰ Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
¹¹ I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

Further, God also prophesied to the Hebrew people that he would raise up someone to speak in his name rather than to speak to human beings directly. According to Deuteronomy 18:15-19 in the English Standard Version (ESV) it is reported that Moses said:

¹⁵ “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— ¹⁶ just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ ¹⁷ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. ¹⁸ I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. ¹⁹ And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

However, listening to the testimony from God's witness is just the first part of the process. The next is for us to have our own testimony. Even in Moses' time, God did not confine his Spirit and prophetic utterances to Moses alone, but gave it unto other Hebrew men. One event was so significant that it is recorded in Numbers 11:26-29 in the New International Version (NIV):

²⁶ However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. ²⁷ A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”
²⁸ Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”
²⁹ But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”

 Apostle Paul related a similar idea in his letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 14:5 Paul states:

I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy.(New International Version/NIV)

Thus, part of God's message to me was that he no longer wants me to be content in believing in the Bible and the experiences of those recorded in the Bible, but he wants me to go deeper and the next level, that he can take my faith and turn me into someone who his Spirit can rest on and use as a mouthpiece to speak in his name. And the same is God's desire for you, whoever you are that reads this post.

God's Passover message to me back in 2011

On April 18, 2011, a friend asked: 'Can u tell me what is the significance of Passover?'

Coincidentally I was reflecting on and writing up what I had learned the even before, when I got this question from my friend. So I shared with him this message:

My friend also asked: ' What can I do today to celebrate this event?'

And what does it really mean?

I answered stating that I thought he asked very good questions. His questions are what I myself need to ponder. I know what I am going to do personally, but is what I am doing really what G-d would want from me?

This evening I am going to celebrate a home Passover with my little girls and wife. Most Jews in the diaspora will do that.

My friend asked:  What do you plan to do with your family that is different?

So I state my agenda:

The recounting of the story of the Exodus, beginning from bondage in Egypt. Drinking (non-alcoholic) wine, eating Matzah (unleavened bread) and bitter herbs, lighting candles and explaining to my 3-year-old what it must have been like to come out of Egypt. Then move on to the story of Jesus and his disciples at the night of his supper, recounting his last supper with the disciples and what he did for humanity and what was the significance of his death and why he had to die.

My friend replied stating that he found my plans interesting, but asked another question: 'Isn't that a message which we should share all year around?'

I replied, that G-d has a different focus for each season. For the Passover season, he wants us to reflect on Christ' death and resurrection. For the season of Pentecost, we focus on the Holy Spirit and the birthday of the church. During the fall festivals, he wants us to focus on the return of Christ and the second advent.

Specifically, the Passover seasons is the spiritual beginning and renewal of the year. We are renewed spiritually for the rest of the year and in preparation for the outpouring of the spirit for the harvest, that prepare us for our work and contribution to the harvest and eventually the harvest itself.

I thank G-d for friends who like me are seeking the spiritual food in the season that G-d has made it available.

My friend, you have already started to celebrate Passover, at least spiritually. Seeking G-d and his meaning in this season is how G-d intends for us celebrate his feasts, his spiritual feasts. By seeking the spiritual food that he has for us in the season that he has prepared it. Just like how you look for mangoes in their season and other fruits in their season; so with the natural, so with the spiritual

It is G-d that created the lights of the sky to mark seasons and times (http://bible.cc/genesis/1-14.htm)

G-d binds his feasts to the seasons, communicating to us that his feasts will never be done away with. Even after the second advent, we will be invited to his commemorative feasts and celebrations (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/66-22.htm; http://bible.cc/zechariah/14-16.htm).

In the Bible, G-d says that his seasons will never end  (http://bible.cc/genesis/8-22.htm). 

G-d in the Bible also declares that there is nothing done under heaven that is not done within a season or within time (http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/3-1.htm)

The Adventist Christmas and New Year conundrum

If there is one (of many) thing[s] that irks me about the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church today is the inconsistency of its theology. On one hand, they hand out religious liberty tracks that paint Roman Catholicism as the whore of Babylon that has lead the world away from true worship. Then in December, the church begins to observe two of Rome's holy or special days: Christmas and New Year. And in North America, the idolatry is heightened when the SDA church decorates it halls and interior with 3-dimensional representations of angels and other creatures or objects of heaven or earth (including the snowman image/sculpture) (Jeremiah 10:3-9). Further, the Christmas tree is decked with these objects and jewels. Then the church calls on the writings of Adventist pope, Ellen G. White, to justify these practices (The Adventist Home Chapter 77, p. 477-483). This is done, despite Pope White not stating that she got a direct revelation from God that Christmas and New Years must be observed.

While I have no problem with my brethren, the Roman Catholics observing these days, and even my fellow Sunday Protestants doing the same, it strikes me that for Adventists, the practices are oddly inconsistent with their theology and teachings, especially their narrow interpretation of their mission of the three angels message in Revelations 14:6-9. From what they taught me, if Rome's worship involves changing God's calendar and deciding when to observe what, then if you are calling people to the true worship, why not point them back to God's original calendar that he first gave to his people the Jews. If you point fingers on Rome, then why do you do some of what they do, but not everything? If you go part way with Rome, why not all the way?

In the Bible, God only has one new year, the Passover (the 14th of Nissan) (Exodus 12:2). However, today Jews celebrate Rosh Hashanah as a second "new year", especially when it announces a year of jubilee (Gordon, 2014). However, scholars dispute this second "new year" (Gordon, 2014; Rood, 2004), with Rood (2004) indicating that the real Biblical new year is the month of Aviv or Passover.

As for Christmas, if the Adventist church developed in protest against Roman Christianity, why has it not opted to adopt the Eastern Christianity's Christmas date in January?

Nonetheless, I want to wish a Merry Christmas to all you who celebrate it without theological inconsistency! Whether on December 25th or in January.


References:

Gordon, N. (2014, Sep. 26). Nehemia's wall: Uncovering ancient Hebrew sources of faith. [Blog post] Retrieved from
http://www.nehemiaswall.com/yom-teruah-day-shouting-became-rosh-hashanah

Rood, M. (2004). The Pagan-Christian connection exposed: A Rood awakening. Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos

White, E. G. (2001). Christmas. The Adventist home: Counsels to Seventh-day Adventist families as set forth in the writings of Ellen G. White. Maryland: Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate.

A call for a Post-Protestant and Post-Evangelical Christian community

Before making my point, let me begin with the dream I had on Wednesday, November 12, 2014.

The dream

1. A PhD colleague and I were in what appeared to be St. Catherine, Jamaica (one of my home parishes), driving to Western Jamaica.
2. It was late evening, and we encountered traffic.  My friend decided to pull over into a church yard, to wait for the traffic diminish.
3. We happened to pull over into a Baptist church yard (could have been any church denomination however) and it was having a late evening service.
4. I pointed out to my colleague that this church was the denomination of my wife as a child, though not in this parish (she's from Western Jamaica).
5. I suggested that we could go inside and sit and take in some of the service.
6. So we went inside and sat in the pews at the back.
7. The people were in worship with a lead singer and a live band leading them in song.
8. After listening to the praise song for a few minutes, my colleague got up, and to my surprise (and everybody else to that matter), grabbed the cordless microphone from the female lead singer and said "Thank you, sister". (My colleague was not a Christian based on my knowledge).
9. He then brought and handed the microphone to me.
10. So I began to speak "Bless the Lord..."
11. Before I could finish my sentence, the lead, grabbed the microphone back and said "you have no right to speak!"
12. My colleague departed and I followed him.
13. For the rest of our journey in the car, I embarrassingly sought to explain to him the actions of the lead and about how different denominations regulate who can speak during worship services. 

End of dream.

I will not render an analysis of the dream, but on the other hand, I find it useful to  make a point. The point that I think it can make is that we need a new Christian community and way of being to meet the needs of a new generation of skeptics and Bible doubters.

The Christianity that I was raised in has served its time. While Christianity rightly assumes that God exists and that the Bible is his revelation to humanity, the way that we go about our worship services and our mission needs to be more oriented around the teaching aspect of the great commission, and less around music and songs. Our church experience can not just be oriented around sermonizing and acknowledging God through music and liturgical ceremony. The needs of my generation no longer fit with the model in which we conduct our services or ministry. No longer are people certain that God exists and that God is good. Further, they are not so sure about the Bible.

My generation wants a community that provides answers and respond to concerns that they have about the goodness of God and the difficult passages in the Bible. My generation wants to believe in a benevolent God and want to believe in the Bible, but there is no guide or shepherd to help them process doubts and questions. Our church services do not help. Structuring it around music and praise do not meet the needs of this new generation, who need teaching and a forum for questions and answers. We need more church services structured around teaching with live Q & A.


This model is not alien to Christianity. Jesus, our chief example, did "sermons" where unbelievers could ask questions and where he gave candid answers, questions or parables in response. The church in Acts, also provide evidence that the apostles spent more time teaching and expounding upon Scriptures and the life events of Jesus than in any scripted music, song and liturgical ceremony. The early dynamic community of Christians had lots of teaching and doctrine, and seemingly had less good singing and music.

Further, if we are going to speak to each other in song, as Apostle Paul admonishes us, shouldn't we sing songs that speak to the needs and themes that we have to deal with today? The hymns of yesteryear cannot be sufficient. And contemporary songs must address the skepticism and the spirit of the age.

This is why I argue that the Billy Graham generation is over. "Crusade" style worship and evangelism will not win the souls of my generation. Today we need new anointed teachers and singers that do things differently. Teachers and singers that shake up our deeply held traditions and formats for Christian service or ministry. Teachers and singers that will centre our services, ministry and worship around Bible reading, teaching and questioning. To centre our worship around discussing the Bible and God's goodness in a world where many have questions and doubt.

Defending the Christian observance of Jewish feast days

Our 2014 mini sukkah built with craft sticks, felt and the leaves of an evergreen tree

Interior of our mini family sukkah, awaiting the handmade furniture

October 8, 2014 marks the beginning of the current season of Sukkot or Feast of Tabernacles where some Jews that observed the mitzvah and slept in a booth and might have seen the lunar eclipse. For me, while I made a mini sukkah (see above) with my girls, I spent the night looking at the lovely moon through my window. Wrapped in the comfort of my warm blanket, I did not envy anyone who had to sleep outdoors (especially in the Ontario, Canada) on that night. However, I do envy the spiritual lessons and blessings that those who did would be learning and receiving.

I recently read the preface of a paper by Tom Roberts that discusses that Christians can "glean much from every religious tradition". He further went on to state that "truth is not the property of any one organization or creed". Robert continues to suggest that:

Christianity in general owes the Jewish people a great debt for giving us the Hebrew Bible as well as the Jewish Messiah which led into the Hebrews roots of early Christianity. While much was wrong with these traditions that Our Lord encountered, they still preserved the revelation of God so the truths in scripture could be found by those who are guided by the Holy Spirit.

While I do not know if I fully agree with all of Robert's statements, they definitely resonate with me. I believe that Christianity today is a religion that is formed from an amalgamation of Jewish and pagan traditions. However, my stance as a Judeo-Christian believer is that the pagan traditions of Christianity should be given up and that we should return to our more Jewish traditions. However, this idea has been found problematic and even offensive to Jews.


I still remember when a Jewish rabbi unfriended me from Facebook because I announced my celebration of a "Christian Passover". He found it offensive and I could not understand why. Well, it was not until the 2014 Passover season when I discovered this article by Rebecca Cynamon-Murphy, a wife of a Jew, but also a Christian that made these remarks which made it more clear why a Christian Passover is offensive:

When people learn that, as a lifelong and practicing Christian, I am married to a Jewish man and that we practice both religions in our house, I often become the safe person to ask about Judaism. I like this advocate role for the opportunity it gives me to gently encourage folks to look at ways in which their privilege as a member of a majority population can sometimes cause them to cause offense.

Several times, I have encountered folks who wanted to host their own Passover seders. Their logic is that since Jesus was celebrating Pesach during the week when he was arrested, tried, executed and resurrected, in a desire to be more Christ-like, they too should celebrate the holiday. 

Christians may desire to become more Christ-like or to develop deeper understanding of Christian roots, but hosting a Jewish Passover outside of the context of Jewish relationships does more harm than good. Christians celebrating their own Passover do unwitting harm to the Jewish people because they ignore centuries of persecution of Jews—and they do harm to themselves by ignoring their real-life Jewish neighbors, treating them as relics rather than people.

That article better helped me to understand why my rabbi [former] friend found it offensive. Cynamon-Murphy (2014) raises the sensitive issue of cultural appropriation. I appreciated this point as I can understand how someone from another culture appropriating something from another person's culture can be deemed offensive.

But it brings me to the reflection that Christianity has nothing much that is original. The majority of our traditions and teachings were appropriated from either Jewish or pagan origins (Greek or Roman). In fact, Christianity tends to appropriate national cultural heritage into their traditions. We use Jewish texts and add to it. We then interpret those texts using Greek and Roman philosophies and interpretative methods. Or we appropriate pagan stories and substitute the name of the pagan characters with Christian ones.

Hence, as I reflect, I have the same Bible as the Jews, except with the New Testament additions. Am I therefore not free to adopt any traditions that help me better appreciate the Bible and its context? Christianity does not have any [non-pagan] family traditions that help children to relive the stories of scriptures. As a friend of mine once said:

Judaism puts a lot more stock in the traditions of the fathers than Christians do. They tend to follow what they have inherited. Christians form new traditions with every new group; and they aren't as ingrained, partially because they are often learnt through conversion, not through parent-child relations.

I believe that the Haggaddah and other Jewish traditions help me to fulfill the Deut. 6:6-9 verse (and even Psalm 78:3-8) that tells me to talk about God's commandments and deeds to my children. Of course I could create my own, but it is so much easier to borrow best practices and reinvent them to meet personalized needs. Isn't preferable to adopt and appropriate the traditions from the people who God gave his oracles (Romans 3:2) rather than from those who Satan deceived? 

Edited for some corrections regarding the timing of the lunar eclipse and other minor wordings.

References:

Cynamon-Murphy, R. (2014, Apr. 11). Why Christians should not host their own Passover Seders. Religion Dispatches. Retrieved from http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/7774/why_christians_should_not_host_their_own_passover_seders/

Roberts, T. [n.d.]. The Law, Sabbath and redemption. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/8678234/The_Law_Sabbath_and_Redemption

"Jewish" prophecies and the Middle East in the Christian's Gospel?

One of the key concepts that Jesus preached about during his time was the kingdom of God. Several theologians and scholars have discussed this idea (Aslan, 2013; Chilton, 2000). Yet, this concept has been missing in today's version of most of Christianity's gospel (see previous related blog post discussing a bible study on the concept). Interestingly, I discovered this recent reading that summarizes this:

Within a very short period after the Church was founded on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 31, a violent controversy arose concerning whether the gospel to be proclaimed was the gospel of Christ—Jesus’ own gospel that he proclaimed and taught, or a gospel about Christ. Jesus had come as a messenger bearing a message from God about the kingdom of God. That message was his gospel. But soon many were ignoring Jesus’ gospel—the kingdom of God—and preaching merely that Jesus was the Christ, preaching about the messenger, ignoring his message or gospel. That is still continuing today. (Pack, 2012, p. 10)

Jesus's teachings about the kingdom of God was informed by the Jewish prophets. According to Chilton (2000), Jesus based his identity and mission on the prophets. In his biography of Jesus, where Chilton tries to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, Chilton (2000) suggests that Jesus applied prophetic visions from Daniel to understanding self.

In the wilderness he began to use a vision from the book of Daniel, an angel beside the Throne of God called in Aramaic "one like a person", who brought him close to his Abba in the divine court of heaven. This "one like a person" was shortly to emerge as the anchor of Jesus' visions and of the visionary discipline he taught his followers. (p.132)

As such, Chilton's words seem to be supported by Pack (2012) who states that the "New Testament Church" or the movement that Jesus founded is built directly upon the Jewish prophets and prophecies. According to Pack:

Did you realize that the New Testament Church is built directly on top of the prophets? I never heard this in Sunday school or in the church of my youth. Ephesians 2:19-20 says, “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” There it is—the Church stands directly on a foundation that includes the prophets! What is written in the
prophets is instruction to God’s New Testament Church! (p. 23)

Considering these things, it is very essential that Bible believing Christians not just focus on New Testament scriptures. For frankly, in the time of Jesus, the New Testament wasn't even written. The foundation of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples were the Jewish prophets. But not to take my word for it, check out the following testimonies from New Testament passages:

Luke 24:27 (New International Version)And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Or 2 Peter 1: 19-21 (New Living Translation)

19Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts. 20Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

And the majority of these "Jewish" prophets made forecasts of the future of no other region than the region of the Middle East (not America or anywhere else in the West). As such, as Pack (2012) mentions, the "[e]vents in the Middle East carry far greater significance than most even begin to understand" (p. 24). Yes, the Middle East is the centre of many Jewish prophecies, including the ones about the kingdom of God that Jesus preached.

This said, Western Bible believing Christians and Jews (who believe in the same prophetic sources), should be intently watching what's happening in Egypt, Libya, Syria and all the places of the so-called Arab spring. For one thing is certain is that all these places are mentioned in the prophecies of the so-called "Old Testament". The very gospel of the kingdom that Jesus told his disciples to teach is based on Middle-East events and territories.


References:

Aslan, R. (2013). Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House.

Chilton, B. (2000). Rabbi Jesus: An intimate biography. New York: Doubleday.

Pack, D. C. (2012). Bible authority: Can it be proven. The Restored Church of God: St. Catharines, ON. Retrieved from http://rcg.org/books/bacibp.html

The case for child-centred church services

Being a father of young children causes me to look at "church" differently. Before my marriage, as a single man I was able to serve in offices and participate in pretty much any of the church's ministries. This changed even more so when I became a father. Just imagine getting ready for church and having to be late because you have to wait on the baby to awake on time. Then having to get up during the "service" to take your child outside, because the child cannot sit still and keep quiet during the sermon. Not to mention the mommies who have to breast feed or even bottle feed the child (which is informally and unofficially forbidden in the "sanctuary"). As such, being a parent, for the first time forces you to contend with how unfriendly "church" is to young parents and their children. [ Disclaimer: this does not apply to the home church where I raised in with my mother and father. Home churches always treat their grandchildren who they've not seen for a while with a grand homecoming welcome and spoil them of course.]

But that's not all. Your eyes begin to open up to the fact that the church in the 21st century is quintessentially structured for adult believers as the major constituency. [Maybe it is because this group is the major contributors of voluntary services (free labour) and tithes and offerings]. However, even with a church offering children services and programmes, you realise that these are the non-essential or fringe services of the church. Children services and programmes are merely outreach, and not the core of what the church is about. [Perhaps a way of reaching out to parents more than the children].

But when I look at the scriptures, I get a different image. Several verses and memory texts tell me of the importance of raising children in the faith from the womb or birth, teaching them while in their youth or infancy. Psalm 22:9-10 for example says:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. (NKJV)

From the child is sucking teats, the child is to be learning about God.

Another verse, 2 Timothy 3:15 says [breaking into the thought]:

from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Hence, children should be learning God's ways from infancy, not as teens or young adults.

A final example of scripture that tells me that the emphasis of teaching children about God is Psalm 71:17, which says:

Since my youth, God, you have taught me, and to this day I declare your marvelous deeds.

This is in addition to that proverb that says "train up a child in the way that they should go and when they are old, they will not depart from it".

But my point is that churches cannot be teaching children doctrines when they are teens or young adults. Doctrines must be taught when they are children. Further, church services cannot afford to cater to adult members and be centred around adult member programming. On the contrary, church has got to be vested in teaching, equipping and educating children for the work of Christian ministry. By this, I don't mean just investing in church schools, Sunday/Sabbath schools and one-off children programmes like Vacation Bible Schools. These are important, but even "traditional" worship services should be ceremonies for initiating children into the faith.

I personally find that church traditions like "communion service" in Protestant, Pentecostal and Evangelical churches fail to incorporate children unless they are baptized. Further, these churches generally baptize a child only when they are confident that the child has reached the age of "understanding" or consent. While church "worship services' are supposedly design to get me focused on God, there is no way that I can focus on God if my children are not engaged in what's going on. The structure of "church" has to be such that children can either participate or observe what is going on so that they can grow in either their understanding of the faith. This means providing opportunities for answer their questions about what is taking place as opposed to shushing them.

For me, an advanced believer with over 20 years of indoctrination (from both school and church), I don't really need the "worship services" as much. My spiritual needs lie in the discussion fora and the Bible studies. Those spaces and opportunities where I get to ask questions and share information. No need to be preached at (though I appreciate the storytelling, interpretations and retelling of familiar Bible stories). However, my concerns are now how to live out my faith in contemporary times. How to answer the questions of contemporary skeptics? Have we misunderstood anything that we now believe? Is there any more truth out of the scriptures that I need to comprehend? Did church founders miss knowledge that we now have access to?

Mark you, I am not saying that we need to do away with regular church worship service structure. Far from it, as this regular structure is still good for the newbies to the faith. It is new believers and children who need to hear sermons and instructions on morality and the purpose or meaning of life. The same group needs to be familiar with Bible stories and the themes of the Christian faith. The regular worship services should tell the grand narratives of Christianity's theme of salvation and redemption. However, we must ensure that children can meaningfully participate in such collective storytelling. (Didn't apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 admonish that we must make our services such that unbelievers can understand it and provide interpreters for those who have difficulties?) Hence regular church services should facilitate children participate in the telling and in meeting the introductory/orientation needs of newbies, while Bible classes/studies serve as the "extra-lessons" for the advanced believers.

After all, there is nowhere in Matthew's commission (Matthew 28:19) where I see a prescription for our current order of services. There is no prescription that we must collect offerings and listen to a sermon from one speaker. Jesus did not command those things and even in his sermons, there was space for interaction and the asking of questions. Rather, Matthew's great commission is for us to baptize, teach and make disciples. Hence, believers should be in the business of converting others to their viewpoint and worldview, instructing these new converts and mentoring them to take over the conversion business. And what better way to convert people to a particular worldview than when they are children with minds open for teaching and learning.

Palm Sunday and Passover 2014 preparation reflection

So Passover 2014 begins April 14. As I attempt to lead my family (or household) in remembering and celebrating this feast, I want to share five thoughts that came to me as we prepared to remember Passover:

1. On Palm Sunday morning, respecting my wife's Christian tradition, we listened to a Bible reading on the events of Palm Sunday. As we listened to the readings prior to the main Palm Sunday event, I noticed the themes of Jesus sayings and teachings prior to his entry in Jerusalem. All the teachings and sayings recorded then seemed to have a reoccurring theme: that of getting rid of the things that separates one from God. Hence, the major idea of Passover preparation is to take time to think about what brings us closer to God and what separates us from him.
2. Cleaning through my refrigerator, I came across numerous vegetables that were abandoned or forgotten, including frozen vegetables. This inspired me to reflect that Passover is a good time to look back at our store house of food and see what we have wasted and make sure that we make good use of food that God provided us. To help do this, we should have a feast and invite friends, neighbours, loved ones or even strangers to help us eat the good food that God has provided us with, and celebrate and not forget his provision in the previous [old] year while we look forward to continuing provision for the new year.
3. Cleaning my refrigerator took the whole morning and I was basically tired and a bit sick after the activity. Despite my enthusiasm to do more, like vacuum and mop the whole house, my body could not meet the goals I set for Passover cleaning. This reminded me that my efforts to remember the Passover by doing some of the activities  in the Bible will always fall short, hence my need for Jesus as my Saviour. Essentially, all the good that I intend to do, cannot be done, because of the limitations in my body and flesh. Hence, I need a substitute who can help me do the will of God and help me to acquire his favour.
4. The matzah is really the "bread of affliction". My wife after eating matzah for an entire week for several years now, does not like the bread (or cracker). Whenever the Passover season comes and I acquire the bread, she reminds me of her horrible experiences and why she does not like the bread. For her, going without leavened products is more like a fast than a feast. I can empathize with her to some extent. Because Matzah is not the kind of food that you want to eat seven days straight. It is a bread that cuts. Because it lacks leaven, it is crunchy but can also lead to sore gums and cuts in the mouth (or lip). Nonetheless, the hardship of eating Matzah can remind us that we as Christians must share in the afflictions of Christ. (For Jews, the affliction is shared with their ancestors). To me the Passover experience reminds me that even though I might have freedom today, religious freedom is not guaranteed tomorrow. Just like how the Jews prospered in Joseph's time in Egypt, it only takes a few generations before your faith can be outlawed and your freedoms taken away. I see parallel today that the Western world, once the bedrock of [Western] Christianity is now becoming increasing secular. The results are, freedoms we used to enjoy are now being curtailed. Yet, the Passover experience reminds me that this is nothing new, and in fact, is promised by our Saviour. As Jesus says: In this world, we shall have sorrow (John 16:33). Hence, we must be prepared and prepare ourselves each Passover remembrance for this reality. We don't know when it may be illegal to be a Christian (for some in the East, this is already reality), but we must always contemplate this reality so that we can be reminded that even though we will be oppressed that God will deliver us as he did with the Hebrews under Pharaoh.
5. Finally, as I cleaned my refrigerator, I wondered if Passover was also a way of getting the Hebrews to practice the hygiene of cleaning their food storage houses once a year, so as to clear out bacteria and other contaminants of food. I not only removed expired food from my fridge, but also wiped away much of the scum that made me wonder how much bacteria lives in the fridge, despite the cold temperature. I can only imagine that the Hebrews in leaving Egypt, without fridge technology, had to deal with hot temperatures associated with their food storage spaces that led to the breeding of fungi, mold and other micro-organisms. 

Finally, I share an insider's joke. My wife argued with me that I shouldn't wait once a year to do "spring cleaning" of the house. In fact, she suggested that we should be doing such activities at least every two weeks, so as to maintain the clean environment, rather than having a whole lot to do at one time. I shot back that God only cleansed his sanctuary once per year. :)

"Kosher" Jewelry: The Biblical guidelines for adornment

Introduction:
There are generally two polarised views in Christianity regarding jewelry wearing. In one camp, persons argue that jewelry should not be worn any at all. Another camp says that it is what is in the inside that counts and that God does not care about the outside. But what does the Bible say about the matter. This year, God's direction to me is to go neither to the left, nor the right (don't get involved in extremes). As such, I decide to go with an open mind into the subject and study what the Bible actually says about this topic of jewelry wearing, rather than relying on the partisan arguments.

I must begin by indicating that based on my non-biblical or extra-biblical research on jewelry has mentioned that jewelry wearing seems to have originated from the practice of wearing amulets, or magic charms. For example in the book of Enoch, it is said that fallen angels taught women to adorn themselves with jewelry and even made the first jewelry (Enoch 8:1). Further sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia suggest that 'all ornaments worn on the person seem to have been originally amulets' (Amulet, 2011). Another source, Cox (2011) cites a source without sufficient bibliographic detail that suggests that "it is possible that bracelets, anklets and rings may have at one time been amulets and to have participated in the general tendency for amulets to degenerate into ornaments (Regalia, ERE, Vol. 10, p. 637)". Jewish sources also indicate that the only jewelry that is Torah-approved is jewelry that carries the Word of God on hand or on the forehead as a reminder of our obligations to God and his covenant and promises. Catholic sources also indicate that the early church also adopted this idea. According to Hassett (1907) "following the example of Moses, who sought to turn the minds of the Jews from the superstitious emblems to which they were accustomed in Egypt, by substituting for them symbols of an elevating character, the Church, while forbidding amulets, permitted the use of emblems which would remind the bearers of some doctrine of Christianity".

These sources aside, we examine the Bible itself.

What the Bible says?
The Bible first of all does seem to permit the wearing of certain jewelry. It also states wear acceptable Biblical jewelry can be worn. According to the book of Proverbs, Biblical approved jewellery is worn around the head and neck (Proverbs 1:8-9; 3:1-3). Further, Deut. 6:4-9 suggests that hand or emblem on the forehead can be worn (specifically verse 8). In all of these scriptures, Biblically approved jewelry consists of written teachings or commandments that reminds us to be loyal and faithful to God. In general Biblically approved jewelry are things worn on our bodies to remind us and others of God's instructions. Any other jewellery wearing seems to be a form of idolatry. In Genesis 35:1-4, we see a unique story where jewelry was associated with idols and that part of the preparation to meet God required changing outward apparel including jewelry. Further, God discusses in the 10 commandments that we should not creates any grave images in the form of any thing (Exodus 20:4).  

Even in the approved jewelry wearing, there seems to be no allowance for earrings. Piercing of the flesh forbidden, except if one wishes to become a man's slave for life (Leviticus 19:28; Deut. 14:1-2; Exodus 21:6). In general the principle is that we are to wear on our clothing  things that honor God, including embroidery (Numbers 15:37-41). In principle, everything worn by a person is point to God and not self. Our bodies are not our own, and we are to use them to bring honour to God (1 Cor. 6:19-20). This is especially important as Christ, the head of the body has already been pierced and tattooed for our sins, we now as his body just need not to have any such marks upon us of our own doing, but bear in our bodies his image and likeness (1 Cor. 15:49).

Conclusion

Based on scripture, our adornment ought to be done in a way that solely glorifies God. We ought not to dress to be fashionable, but rather, we must dress to remind ourselves and others to be faithful to God. While we are God's earrings and jewels accentuating God and make him attractive to other people and nations, this does not mean we must dress as how the secular world defines "attractive". Based on the scriptural evidence, I tend to take the perspective that if we wear any jewelry or adornment, it should be text of scripture or Bible verses or words that reminds us of God. Further, if we wear any thing (whether bits of wood, bone, stone, or other natural objects), as the people of faith (or scripture) we should wear engravened or written scripture on these objects that refer us and others to God. However, to summarise, the guiding principle when putting on any clothing or object is: will this cause me and others to be faithful to God and his teachings.


References:

Amulet. In (2011). JewishEncyclopedia.com. Kopelman Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1445-amulet

Cox, W. (2011). The origin of the wearing of earrings and jewellery in ancient times. Christian Churches of God. Paper No. 197. (Edition 2.0 19970405-20010215-20110511). Retrieved from http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p197.html

Hassett, M. (1907). Amulet. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01443a.htm