ok, i know household budgets aren’t the same as national budgets, but this picture still makes a very good point. The $385 is particularly striking.
The Difference between Lazarus’s Resurrection and Christ’s
I feel like I’ve probably buried everyone under all the political stuff lately, and so I thought I would post something a little more life-inclined. So this post is about something I recently read in a book called Life-study of Philippians.*
This book speaks about what the apostle Paul calls “the out-resurrection from the dead,” (Phil. 3:11). In speaking about this, the book reveals that there is a big difference between the resurrection of Lazarus and the resurrection of Christ. I had always wondered about this. Well, I mean, I always felt bad for Lazarus: he was resurrected one day (John 11:43-44), but he ended up dying again when he got old. With Christ, however, this isn’t the case; Christ resurrected, and He completely defeated death. Death no longer had any hold over Him (Acts 2:24). So what’s the difference?
Well, the difference is that Christ’s resurrection is a resurrection out of the old creation and into God. When Lazarus resurrected, he still had his old body, and he was still a part of the old creation. When Christ resurrected, however, He resurrected with a spiritual body (John 20:19); He was (is) a new creation (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17). When Lazarus was resurrected, he was unchanged in his nature. Christ resurrected and became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore, even though Lazarus was resurrected, he eventually ended up back in the tomb. But Christ’s resurrection brought Him to the throne of God—and He is there today.
Thus, when Paul speaks of the out-resurrection (“out” is a prefix translated from the Greek, ek, meaning “extra”), He means an extraordinary resurrection. Lazarus had an ordinary resurrection, but Christ’s is extraordinary. Christ’s resurrection is a resurrection that brought Him out of the old creation and brought Him to God. To be in this out-resurrection means to leave everything of the old creation and to be brought into God. For this goal, Paul pressed on, considering it a prize to be won (Phil. 3:12-14).
Here are some quotes from the book:
…the resurrection of Lazarus is very different from the power of Christ’s resurrection. Eventually, Lazarus died and was again buried in the tomb, but Christ’s resurrection was a resurrection that brought Him to the throne. When Paul speaks of the power of Christ’s resurrection, he has in mind something different from the power manifested in the resurrection of Lazarus. Paul is speaking of a resurrection that can be called Christ’s resurrection. He wanted to know the power of His resurrection. (Life-study of Philippians, p. 461)
The common meaning of resurrection is that something dies and comes to life again. Lazarus was resurrected in this way. He had died, had been buried, and had even begun to smell bad. Then the Lord Jesus came and cried out, “Lazarus, come forth!” and Lazarus came out of the tomb (John 11:43-44). Was the resurrection of Lazarus a case of the out-resurrection? No. Even though Lazarus was raised from the dead and came to life again, nothing of the new creation was wrought into him. Instead, he continued to be a person in the old creation. At most, Lazarus experienced restoration; he was restored from death to the natural life…The out-resurrection in 3:11 is very different from the resurrection of Lazarus. Did Paul expect to return to the tomb once he obtained the out-resurrection? Certainly not! The resurrection Paul was pursuing in Philippians 3 was something absolutely apart from the old creation and in the new creation. What Paul terms the out-resurrection refers to a resurrection out of the old creation and into the new creation. (ibid., pp. 466-467)
*Lee, Witness. Life-study of Philippians. Living Stream Ministry: Anaheim. 1984.
my republican conundrum
Here is the thing: I’m a Republican (as you’ve noticed). But I’m not a Tea Partyist. So I love John Boehner, but I can’t handle Rand Paul. I’m not on the far right; I’m in the middle. I’m moderate. I support the National Endowment for Humanities, but I also support the right to bear arms. I’m pro-life, and I see the need for public schools. I’m a moderate conservative Republican. I’m happy to be a Republican. I feel that it’s the party that best represents me, that best matches my view of the role of government. I tell myself that in the GOP, there are more people like me than not.
The other thing is, I don’t like conflict. I just don’t like it. I don’t like it when kids tease each other, I don’t like it when people are angry at me, and I don’t like believing that half of the nation (The Democrats) is some brand of evil I cannot trust. Call me naive, call me foolish. It’s just the way it is. I like to believe they are good people, too, just with a different sense of things. So when Obama says something about working together, about the mission itself being the key thing, about overcoming some differences even if we can’t bridge every gap, I want to applaud.
So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong. -State of the Union 2012
I agree with that. I may have certain moral views that don’t correlate with other Americans’, but we all think the economy needs to be fixed. I want Congress to work around the differences they can’t bridge and compromise on the ones they can.
But I feel like Washington doesn’t want me to want that. I feel this sort of pressure to stay locked into a stalemate. To hate the Other Side. When Obama calls for unity and teamwork, I feel like the Republicans are not supposed to agree with that. But why not? That is what I want. I’m not trying to betray my party. I’m not saying I’ll vote for Obama. I don’t suddenly support Obamacare or abortion. I just… I support working together. I think Obama has some bad ideas, but this one is good. And I support this good idea. Why isn’t that ok?
I want Congress to work together. I don’t think working together means we just do things my way. I think working together means we do things some my way and some your way. We may not like the whole solution, but we both agree its better than no solution at all. But it seems like Congress doesn’t want me to believe that. They want me to think that no solution is a sign of strength or firmness, of loyalty. (But they all have jobs, and can pay their bills, buy groceries, etc., so, ya know.) And I just really struggle with that. I don’t like the idea that I’m supposed to be more loyal to my party than my country. For the record, both parties pressure their constituents the same amount: Democrats are supposed to resist giving into Republicans, and Republicans are supposed to stand firm against the Democrats. THEY are the enemy, you know.
Only, I don’t know that. I don’t think they are. I think unemployment and a crumbling economy are the enemy.
This country is in trouble, and something needs to be done—soon. Sooner than soon. Like yesterday-was-too-late soon. And I don’t understand all the pressure to demonize the other side. What does that accomplish? Absolutely nothing, if we look at 2011. Stalemate after stalemate. Lack of progress after more lack of progress. Nothing begetting nothing. Ad nauseum.
So, Washington, since you tried stalemates and it didn’t work, why not try compromise and see how that goes. Why not try seeing the strength in other ideas, the virtue in the other side—there is some, you know, on both sides. Ok, so in the end, neither side will get everything they want. But we’ll all—all the people NOT in Congress, all the people who do struggle with joblessness, rising prices, and debt—we all get something. That’s a start, and in my book, it counts for a lot. It’s what we elected you to do: to make sure we got something, not to make sure the other side didn’t.
state of the union: the game
Tonight is the State of the Union address, broadcast live on various channels at 9PM EST (#SOTU on twitter). I’m sure there are lots of serious ways to approach this hallowed speech, but I gotta admit, I loved John Parkinson’s “10 Things to Watch for in the State of the Union address” on ABC.com.
In case the speech itself isn’t enough fun for you, I thought I’d set out the rules to The State of the Union: The Game. It’s a game my brothers and I played last year. It’s easy, fun, and vegan-friendly.
Each person makes a list of 8 words he or she thinks the President is likely to use in the speech. You can pick phrases or single words, but you can’t pick words like “the” or “or.” Real words, people!
Each person compares their list with the other players’ lists. Similar to Scattegories, if more than one person has chosen a particular word or phrase, neither party gets credit for it. So if two people put “economy” on their list, neither of them get points for it, regardless of how many times Obama uses that word. (Also, if you picked questionable words–like “the” or “and”—the other players can decide you must eliminate those words from your list, and you don’t get to replace them.)
Then you watch the speech. Mark down every time a word or phrase on your list is spoken by the President in the text of the speech. At the end, the most points win. In the case of a tie, winners are determined by thumb wrestling.
This year, my words are:
(oh, wait, I won’t reveal that till later.)
