“The Prestige” Theory of the Resurrection.

With out a doubt, the most central, and at the same time, the most troubling event of the Christian faith is the resurrection. Central, because of its implications. Troubling, because of its miraculous nature.

There are plenty of theories around the resurrection. For those who deny, and are committed to a completely naturalistic worldview, there is no shortage of options to choose from. What I want to hopefully do over the next few post is discuss some of the alternate theories. I’m sure my conclusions won’t be definitive for any skeptics, but there is a loose framework we can use to determine which explanation of the resurrection is the most probable. Maybe it will challenge all of us, and help us think critically.

The Simplest, and The Best

There are much smarter dudes than I who have worked through this stuff before. A simple Google search will yield some great, and some not so great results. My hope is to simplify some of the better tools, and agruements, in order for them to be approachable by ordinary people like you and me.

That being said, the easiest way to sift through the various explanations of the resurrection is by using the framework “the simplest, and the best.”

By “simplest”, we mean the one with the least complexity. To use an outrageous example to help make the point, let’s pretend that there is a resurrection theory that involves time travel. This explanation would then be too complex, and not simple enough to explain the resurrection. To accept this theory you would have to explain time travel for the theory to work. So we can conclude, by this theory’s unnecessary complexity, that it is highly unlikely compared to the simpler theory that a miracle took place, and Jesus rose from the dead three days later.

By “best”, we mean the theory that makes the most sense of all of the evidence. So in our fictional time travel theory, it may make some sense of some of the evidence, “perhaps there was a time traveler that traveled back in time, and using future medical technology, revived and healed Jesus over the course of three days. ”

The problem is that theory only explains away the actual resurrection, not the miracles Jesus performed after his resurrection, or why he would continue to claim to be God, and claim that he was resurrected, or the appearance of angels at the tomb etc. The explanation is not “best” because it doesn’t account for the most evidence, and in our nonsense example, it actually makes more holes than it explains away.

So whatever theory you hold, ask “is it the simplest?”, does it make sense without getting too crazy in theory? And “is it the best?”, does it explain all the evidence that we do have?

You Must Have Faith

By saying that “you must have faith” I do not mean that unfair classification of the Christian understanding of “faith”. Faith is normally characterized as blind trust in something inspite of clear evidence to the contrary. That is not what faith, even Christian faith, is. Faith is simply “placing your trust in something”.

That’s it, if you are playing poker, no matter how good or bad your hand, you are “placing your trust” I.E. You “have faith” when you place your bet. You are either placing your faith because you see your cards and think that the odds are in your favor, or placing your faith in the bluff. Either way faith is involved.

Which is why I say that “you must have faith”. No matter what theory you accept, the one that affirms the resurrection, or one of the ones that deny it, you are exercising faith in one or the other. Faith is involved no matter what team you are playing for.

My tension with all of the alternate resurrection theories, is that when you begin to examine them, you end up finding out that they require more leaps of logic, and blind faith, then the actual biblical theory. The fact is most alternate theories require more faith than the actual theory.

Spoiler Alert

The theory we are going to examine is similar in plot to the Christopher Nolan film “The Prestige” starting Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. So if you have not seen the movie, and want to, you’ve been warned. There are plot spoilers ahead!

“The Prestige”‘s plot follows two competing magicians played by Bale, the other by Jackman. Following an accident involving Jackman’s wife resulting in her death, both magicians began to feud, sabotaging each other’s acts and constantly trying to out do the other, and getting revenge along the way. This culminates when Bale’s magician performs a trick with two doors on opposite ends of the stage. He throws a ball from one door to the other, and as he exits the door he simultaneously enters the opposite door and catches the ball he just tossed.

This drives Jackman’s magician character nuts. He can’t figure out how he did the trick, but he must one up him. This fuels Jackman to push the extremes of science, and sacrifice his humanity to perform an even more amazing version of Bale’s trick.

*Spoiler Alert* Bale sneaks back stage to find out how Jackman’s trick is done, Jackman fakes his death and Bale is framed, put in jail and then executed. (This is a very abbreviated version, go watch the movie, it’s great!) Towards the end of the movie Bale’s character comes back and shoots and kills Jackman. But how did he do it? What is revealed is that Bale had pulled off the most brilliant long term trick ever. All this time, completely hidden from everyone, even his wife and child, Bale had a twin brother, and they would each take turns being the magician.

Twins!

This elaborate plot twist is eerily similar to one of the alternate versions of the resurrection account. More commonly called “The Twin Brother” theory, it asserts that Jesus had a secret twin brother who took his place after his death claiming to be the resurrected Christ.

Hopefully most of you will scoff at “The Prestige” theory, (my name for it is better than the “Twin Brother” theory) and plainly see it’s silliness. However some people, even if only a small amount, hold to this alternate version. Now whether or not they actually believe this theory, or only choose to believe it so that they don’t have to consider the truth claims of the bible, is another question.

Extra Faith

As opposed to comparing each theory against each other, let’s just discuss the “extra” things you have to believe in order to accept “The Prestige”.

You have to believe that Jesus had a twin brother that no one knew about, like his brothers, sisters and his mom, unless you say they were “in on it”, but we will get there later. You have to believe that Mary, a devout Jew, didn’t recognize her own son standing as imposter to her now dead son, or that she began to worship her own son as God knowing that he was an imposter. If she did believe that this was the crucified son, then she doesn’t seem to worried about his twin brother. Unless you believe the twin brother went about paying both roles, and no one ever wondered why he and his twin are never in the same place at the same time like Clark Kent and Superman, which is impossible because there were no phone booths for him to change in ancient Israel. Remember, there was no advantage to being a Christian in the early church. You would of only receive scorn and persecution for being a Christian. So then you also have to believe that Jesus’s brothers and sisters didn’t recognize him either, and also began to worship him as God like Jude, and James, the latter of which was thrown of the top of the temple for his belief.

You have to believe that any records or witness to this twin has been a tightly held secret for thousands of years. You have to believe that Joseph and Mary had conceived this plan from before the birth of the twins, raised the boys separate from any family or friends that may tell the secret, and as the boys grew up, convinced them to go along with the plan. Then you finally have to believe that siblings don’t rat each other our.

You Also Have a Few Things To Explain

If Jesus’s family was merely “in on it” why create this elaborate hoax that would cause them scorn, persecution and martyrdom? How did Jesus’s twin recreate the specific marks he bore from the crucifixion? Did he self inflict those wounds? It must be pretty difficult to punch a nail through your hands and feet by yourself, and then puncture your own side. If he did recreate the marks himself, how did he not cause himself serious injury? By the third day, he seems to be fine, walking around, and the wounds have already scarred over, was this special effects make up? Were the disciples in on it as well? So if they were, they all died horrible deaths for something they knew to be untrue? Plenty of people still opposed Jesus, why didn’t they just go get the twin brother’s body that was still in the tomb?

What’s with the elaborate spectacle at the tomb anyway? How did his co-conspirators get past the highly trained Roman guards and move the stone in front of the tomb? Keep in mind, the more people that are involved, the least likely the secret will be kept. Were the guards in on it too? Was Jesus twin brother a magician? This is “The Prestige” theory after all, did he pull a David Copperfield act and convince hundreds of witnesses that he actually flew up into heaven? Where did he go after that?

Did he really fool all of his friends, and loved ones into believing in him to the point of their deaths, and then just left them all as they all suffered? How did he pull off that awesome trick where he blindsided the apostle Paul, who saw him while his traveling companions couldn’t see him, but did hear his voice, the left him blinded for a few days, then healed him through a prophet, which convinced Paul to give up his life of power and privilege for suffering and eventually a beheading? The list goes on.

The Alternative

Conversely you only have to believe that there is a God to accept the biblical theory, and there are plenty of good arguments for his existence.

Grace&Peace

(If you’d like a more thorough and academic approach, I’d invite you to go check out http://www.str.org or http://www.reasonablefaith.org if you find this blog helpful please consider sharing with others.)

Raising a Glass to Freedom.

I have a lot to say on the subject of alcohol. I mean, I normally have a lot to say about anything, but for whatever reason, a few articles posted by friends on social media feeds have been centered around this topic, specifically on whether Christians should or should not imbibe. So here is my two cents, which probably isn’t worth anywhere near two cents, but take it if you will.

I think that there are fair points on both sides, and at the same time, both sides fail to get to the heart. That’s my hope, to get to the heart of this issue. One side says “no” and give a long list of warnings, the other side says “yes”, and says that we are free in Christ. Both are true, but again, fail to go deep enough. So, I’ll do my best to be brief and to the point, but if you know me, you might as well get comfortable.

The Error of Comparing Percentages

The articles on my feed, and one ridiculous video, all stand opposed to Christian drinking. The video is over the top, and its valid points are overshadowed by red herring arguments, circular reasoning, and clear slippery slope fallacies. However, it did make many of the arguments that I grew up with in church. Most of these arguments are besides the point, a popular one being that the alcohol content of wine was so low that it was more like grape juice.

Okay…I guess, but the issue is not about the quantity or % of alcohol in the juice, but whether it is consumed at all. The argument is off topic, and besides the point. In this argument, even though it is used to discourage drinking, the point is made on the fact the alcohol was still consumed, just with really low content. So my questions is “Are you saying that as long as my alcohol content is really small is still okay?” Surely this is not what the proponents of this argument mean.

The sin problem associated with alcohol is not the alcohol or the content of alcohol in a drink itself, but drunkenness. And even though the content was lower, drunkenness was still a problem frequently addressed by the bible. So we can infer two things. 1. The drunkards were either making there own wine with higher alcohol content, or not mixing it with water as to dilute it. Or, 2. They just drank lots more of the diluted .0001% alcohol content wine.

Either one or both of these things was taking place, but either way people were still getting trashed, and so you still had a drunkenness problem even with heavily diluted grape juice wine. What we can then gather is that the problem is not with the booze itself, but with the people. Objects are not evil, its what people do with them that’s evil.

External Righteousness vs Internal Un-righteousness

This is the type of arguement that frustrates me. It only addresses the act, focusing on externals, and never gets to the heart. It is how a Pharisees would approach the problem, not how Jesus would address the heart of the problem. Evil religious men measure quantities, they never go beyond specific borders that they make up for themselves, and admonish those who do go beyond those borders. Opposing them, righteous religious men heed the council of scripture, and where scripture is unclear, they use wisdom and discernment over every action. Which is what we need to exercise around this issue.

There is a story in the bible of two men who go to the temple to pray. The first man watches his percentages very closely, he gives 10%, as was the law, and even tithes off his spice rack. The second man comes to pray and realizes that he is 100% in need of God’s mercy. Jesus says that the second man gets it, and that the first man misses the point. The problem is not the % of alcohol, or how well you tow the line, but the heart of the person who chooses to sin with alcohol. 

So…

What is the Christian Position?

Moving away from the video, the articles were much more gracious, even tempered, and fair minded. The attitude was certainly against alcohol, but the approach was simply asking Christians who do drink, to consider a few issues first. I think this is wise counsel. To simply rethink and evaluate your position, something Christians are constantly supposed to be doing anyway, in order to let our minds constantly be renewed by God’s spirit. This is a completely fair and just request.

The articles are quick to point out that there is no one verse that outright tells Christians not to drink. They are right. However, there are verses condemning drunkenness and encouraging those in leadership to heavier control, and even in some cases, complete avoidance. To this, I think both sides would agree.

Christians are, according to the authority of God’s law in scripture, permitted to drink, in moderation, below drunkenness. That is the plain understanding shared by the majority of Christendom. Those in favor say “yay!” and go on their merry way, those opposed have a few “howevers” that they want us to consider; and I, a guy in the “in favor” camp, think that we absolutely should consider these “however” points.

HOWEVER, You Should Watch Your Witness

There are two main “howevers”, of which, both have their merit, and I think only a fool would completely dismiss them. The first is a matter of witness.

The agreement normally asserts that even though drinking is permissible it could possibly ruin our witness, or sully our character in such a way, that people may be turned off to Christianity. They may say something like “We are supposed to be set apart from the world, and if we look like the world, then the image of Christ that we are supposed to display, will be marred by our poor example.” I think this is true, but it doesn’t exactly follow all the way through.

Christian character and life should stand apart from the world, but this does not automatically mean that drinking is worldly. Remember the problem is not the drink, its the heart that sins with the drink. Maybe in your particular culture, city, state, or circle of influence, it is seen as particularly evil. So we have to apply the witness rule to these particular situations or context. However, just because it applies to one particular situations, even if it’s the majority of situations, it doesn’t mean that it is then the prescribed method for ALL situations.

The “however” point of ” watch your witness” cuts both ways. In some instances refusing the drink could also hurt your witness. For example, I had a friend in college, back when I falsely believed that drinking was sinful, who went on a mission trip to Vietnam. While there he told me that he had a traditional alcoholic drink with some of the members of the group he was witnessing too. I immediately cautioned him about his witness, he replied explaining that he could of refused the drink over some personal conviction that the people he was witnessing to would not of understood, causing an unnecessary hurdle to the cultural barrier already there. Or he could take the drink with kindness and grow closer to the people that he wanted to share Jesus with. He’s right. Those people would not of been impressed by his refusal of the drink, but instead, they were filled with some gladness that he graciously accepted their favor.

Our witness as Christians is frightfully important. The deeds that sully our witness have more to do with our character. So then where does our character flow from? It flows from what we believe deeply in our hearts.

So a drunken Christian surely is a horrible witness, not just because of the dangers that come with his drunkenness, but about what is revealed about his character and heart when he is drunk. Let me point out that most Christians show their rude behavior or poor character whether or not alcohol is present, and again, for both the drunk and the unkind person, the problem is in their hearts.

HOWEVER, Watch the Weaker Brothers

The second “however” concern revolves around how your actions may cause a weaker Christian brother to fall. The argument suggest that even though you don’t struggle with drunkenness, your brother in Christ might, and by your permission of alcohol you may open them to drunkenness that may lead to them destroying their lives. Or, a little less destructive, someone who opposes alcohol use, may be offended by your use.

To the second part of this argument, it is just simply impossible to never offend anyone, people get offended by all sorts of silliness. Now you should be sensitive of course, but without getting into the particulars, being sensitive to the feelings of others still doesn’t follow that you should completely abstain from alcohol. On top of this, it is never good to misrepresent yourself, which if you are going to avoid all offenses, you will surely have to eventually do. Further, someone’s offense is not a proper condemnation on the act itself, God’s offenses, however, is.

Be Ye Not Offended

I have a couple of examples to this second point of the “weaker brother” argument. First, my aunt is one of the greatest Christians I know, she knew that I used to have issues with drinking, and once at a family dinner she asked my wife if I would be offended if she got a drink. There you go, its that easy. Her freedom to drink wasn’t worth knowingly offending me and upsetting our relationship. It, like most of these opposing arguments, cuts both ways. At the same time, my freedom not to drink, over her freedom too drink is not worth upsetting our relationship, so I should not lord my preference over hers. Now if her attitude was to love the drink over her nephew, and she said to me that I “should get over it”, well then this does reveal a problem, but again with her heart, not the booze.

What is funny in this example is that I am the weaker brother, however, at the time, I would of considered my aunt the weaker one because I abstained and she didn’t. I thought my position, and discipline on the matter made me superior. Now I realize I was the weak and immature one, and that my pride in that moment was a worse sin, and offense than anyone having a drink.

Causing Others to Stumble

What I am trying to make clear is that removing alcohol from the equation does not eliminate the sin taking place in the heart. I hope that we all understand that if someone has a particular sin issue, in this case, with drinking, that there problem is not that they had a beer, or even that they had too many beers, the problem is their heart. If we understand this then when can begin to discuss the first part of the weaker brother argument.

Jesus’ bold little brother, James, makes it clear in his book that when we sin it is because we are enticed by our own desires. The assumption in the second half of the weaker brother argument, is that my drinking may encourage someone else to drink, maybe even my own son, and what if they have a particular preposition to addiction, and then they drink because of me, and now they are an alcoholic? Well other than the fear based motive instead of trust in Jesus motive of this argument, it completely ignores what we know about sin from James, and there are a couple ways to look at this if we are going to go after the heart.

First off, my partaking is not an encouragement for drunkenness, anymore than giving my wife a kiss is an encouragement for someone else to lust. If they see my acts of permission to justify their own sin, then their hearts have already crossed that line long before they ever looked to me for justification. So in the context of my son, I want him to see how a mature Christian disciplined man is supposed to treat his wife, and further, how he should handle his drink. Appropriate, proper, and controlled exposure is where I want him to learn and see my example.

If I remove all alcohol from my house, and my child’s only exposure to the concept is “we don’t do that, its a sin.” Then I am most likely setting him up for failure by giving him no context in which to understand something like alcohol. Something that he will inevitably be exposed to. So I prefer his exposure to be from his dad who loves him, not his knuckle-headed buddies who just want to have a good time.

So my son heads off to college were the only attitude towards drinking he knows, is that it is sinful, and he has only been taught two options. Either don’t drink, or you sin. Now my son, faced with adjusting to a new life situation, trying to fit in with new peers, no matter how holy he had been living previously, is very likely to choose the sin option. Now what if I had raised my son in a context where the subject of alcohol was talked about when appropriate, and his exposure to it was proper and disciplined? What if I told him that there were actually three options? You can either avoid drinking, sin with drinking, or worship with drinking.

Worship The Creator, not the Creation

The heart problem with drunkenness is here. There may be factors that play a part, and I don’t doubt that there are, but when someone struggles with drunkenness the root problem is that they have began to worship the alcohol as god, and exchanged it for the God who created alcohol. This applies to every sin. Those who struggle with lust elevate the created act of sex over the creator of sex. Those who struggle with gluttony elevate the creation of food over the creator of food, etc.

So for my son, I always want him to know the third option to all of life’s situations. That it is not always a simple “do I” or “don’t I”, but “How can I worship God in this?” We do this by first teaching clearly what the bible instructs us to do on all matters, but also, along side, we proclaim the supremacy of God above all things.

“So my son, some people drink to feel alive, but God is the author of life and has given us new life in his son, not through some beverage. Others try to numb out pain by drinking to forget their problems, but God has given us a better solution than numbness, inviting us to heap all of our woes on the cross of his son, that he may redeem all of our failures and pain without dulling our senses. This means, my son, that when it comes to alcohol you can drink or not drink, because if Christ is truly your master then alcohol won’t master you. Do whatever you do for the Glory of God, then be satisfied in him and you won’t have to look for satisfaction in a bottle.”

Unnecessary Walls

The difficulty of the Christian life is that the Christian message we are to proclaim is intrinsically exclusive. On one hand, it is radically inclusive, that it is offered freely to everyone. At the same time, it is extremely exclusive for those who reject it, they will ultimately lose the hope of Jesus and salvation in it.

It is for this reason that I caution anyone to tread lightly over issues of personal conviction. When we insist that the very act of drinking is sinful we wrongfully add to the prescription that the bible actually gives. The problem with a person’s drunkenness is that the act was probably preceded by a host of other poor decisions. Poor friends that make bad choices perhaps. Overall immaturity or lack of discipline would be a potential sign. Somewhere, someone could of stepped in along the way and spoke the truth to this person.

Instead, if we choose to promote the negative uses of alcohol and insist that complete abstaining is biblical and anything less is a sin, or less than perfectly holy, then we build extra-biblical walls of division. There are certainly biblical things to divide over, but drinking should not be one of them. It discourages open dialogue, and, as in my own case, promotes self-righteousness. So when a young person falls into this particular sin they keep it hidden, and avoid help because of the guilt, scorn, and disappointment they may receive. They feel that they are unable to openly confess, as was the case in the context I grew up in, that they may have somehow messed up Gods plan for their life. Or on the other hand, it may lead some unbelievers to falsely believe that their alcohol use, even if it is proper use, is a point of division between them and the church, or even worse, them and Jesus.

I didn’t have my first drink of anything until I was 28. I only drink with people I trust, normally with other dudes that have the same values as I do, men that are married, love Jesus and are disciplined themselves. I can not think of a time that I’ve had more than two beers in one sitting, I’ve never even been tipsy, and if that ever where to happen, the friends I surround myself with would have no problem cutting me off. I make wise decisions that surround my consumption so to help prevent me from failing, even though sinning with alcohol is not something I particularly struggle with. Isn’t this how we should guard all of our activities?

Worshipping with Beer

Let me wrap up with a personal account. My dad has had it pretty tough. A good dad, I am super grateful for, still his life has not turned out the way he expected. When I was a freshman in high school my parents got divorced. In my opinion my dad hasn’t been the same since. He left the church feeling that the church had failed to intervene and help my parents when they needed it most, my mom would agree on this. Feeling rejected my dad became more and more careless with own personal discipline, especially around alcohol. To him, this became part of the ever-widening barrier between him and religion, and where people on the religious side took issue, he found a group of people who took no issue, and were even permissive. We are built for community, and my dad found a new community centered around a bar stool.

Fast forward to this past Christmas. I get a call from my dad, “Hey come down to Willie’s (a local sports bar), your brother is down here and I want to give you some money to spend on the girls (my five daughters) for Christmas.” “Sure”, I thought, ” I need to get some shopping done anyway.” My brother was the first to greet me and ordered me a Black & Tan, he had known about my recent change in convictions, whereas my dad had not. We sat and ate a meal, caught up and hung out. If I still held to my previous more conservative convictions, this moment would of never happened, I wouldn’t of been invited for fear of offending me. It was great, I, the pious religious son, got to connect with my dad in a way that we hadn’t in a long time.

I started to excuse myself to leave when my dad said “Hey, before you go do a Christmas shot with me.” I hadn’t even finished my Black & Tan so I was more than okay, “Sure dad!” He ordered a shot for both of us and as we began to tip them back, he said to me “I never thought I’d have a beer and share a shot with you.” My reply, “Well dad, people change.”

It was a God moment. What my dad previously thought impossible, was now possible. “People change”, and its true, if God can change your religious son’s self-righteous heart, he can change yours as well. In that moment, the truth of the gospel that I want my dad, and others like him to know, is that “This drink in my hand is not a barrier between our relationship as father and son, and it is also not a barrier between you and God.” I left giving my dad a hug and telling him to come visit us at church. He said he would, but I’m sure we may have to share a few more shots before that happens.

Grace&Peace.

Nehemiah : A Better City : v1-11

If today’s blog is different, its because it is. These are my notes from today’s gathering.

A sermon series from http://www.myvillagechurch.com

God is not taken off guard on our bad days. Normally our actions in these moments, days, and seasons, is to act as if God has forgotten us. What this often reveals about our hearts, is not Gods insufficientcy, but our low view of his sufficienty.

V1-3
Background of the story

The capitol city of Israel is Jerusalem. The story revolves around a group of exiled remnant jews who have been living 900 miles away from their home, pushed out by invading forces. Generations pass and another invading force takes over the previous invading force and allows the people to go back home. This leads us up to the events of the book of Haggai, the events in Nehemiah take place about ninety years after that. Nehemiah has gained some favor and level of power within the invading forces, and is in a place of authority in a house of royalty. He peeks into Jerusalem to check out how the remnant of Israel are doing, and finds out that his country men and their city is in shambles.

The key to understanding Nehemiah is to gauge his reaction as a mirror of Christ up against our reaction today when we live, breath, and see the distress of our cities.

V4-6
Nehemiah hears of the state of his city. God burdens the right people at the right time and place to accomplish his purposes, and here he burdens Nehemiah for his city. Nehemiah responds by weeping, praying and fasting for his people.

Point one. He goes to God before he goes to work. Nehemiah is about to do work, he will be moved to action, but not before he goes to God first. The question for us then is ” Who or what do you turn to first in distress? ”  Whatever or whomever you turn to is what you trust most. On a super small level, its like waking up and checking your phone to see who commented on your status from last night before praying to God. What you do first reveals what you trust most. So how do you deal in the moment to moment, where do you go first?

V6b-10
Secondly we see Nehemiah take the blame vs us who normally give blame. In the very first instance of sin in the bible we see Adam blame God for giving him the woman that caused him to sin. Nehemiah doesn’t blame the remnant for their state, he owns and takes responsibility for the sins against them and the sins they’ve committed. He doesn’t sit in his “ivory tower” and look down own them, which is what we always do, instead Nehemiah was burdened for them and moved to action. Do you own or blame? It was on them (the remnant), but Nehemiah puts himself right in the middle of their mess. The coward blames, when we blame we are cowards, the Godly man is burdened and moves to action.

V8-11
Point three. He confesses the greatness of God over the greatness of the problem. He reminds them of the word of God, that no matter how far off we go, God will bring us back. He doesn’t whine or complain about the greatness of the problem, but instead proclaims the greatness of God. We forget the greatness of God in the face of great problems. May we long to trust God this way.

Nehemiah is not the goal or the benchmark of faithfulness, and he is a good example and a challenge to us to grow and change, but in this book we are not the Nehemiah. We are the broken beat up and unable to remain faithful people stuck in a dying city.
Nehemiah is the compass who points us to Christ.

The Christ who was outside of our brokeness in a house of royalty, he looks down on us and puts himself in the middle of our situation,  owns our sins that is not his own, and petitions the Father on their behalf, and begins the work to redeem a city and save a people.

May we be saved and the burdened for our cities like Nehemiah, and like him, may we get involved and point people to their true and only hope in Christ.