Andy's Awakenings

Search Engine

2012-01-29T19:39:00.001-08:00

Maddie's Search Engine

2012-01-29T19:14:00.000-08:00

Search Engine

2012-01-29T19:00:00.001-08:00

Keep the Christ in Christmas

2011-12-16T06:59:00.000-08:00

They’re called nomina sacra—sacred names. The Earliest Christian scribes who copied the books of the Greek New Testament by hand so that they could be circulated to other churches had a relatively uniform set of abbreviations for divine names. For example-the word for “humanity” in the ancient Greek of the New Testament was anthropos. You can imagine writing that several times could become tedious so the scribes would write two capital letters—an alpha and a nu and then put a line over it. The word for God –Theos—would be abbreviated with a capital theta with a line above it. The nomina sacra for Jesus was Iota Eta and if it was in the nominative case (that is as the subject of the sentence) it would have a concluding sigma. It would look like IHS though many Christians think that means “In His Service.” Perhaps the most profound nomina sacra is the one used for cross, in Greek Stauro and in crucify stauroo. It looks like a smooth, curved capital “P” with a cross bar. It looks like a man on a cross. Of course with the persistent use of Christ, there was a nomina sacra for Christ. It was a chi with an line on top. A capital chi looks like an uppercase X. Nomina sacra were the forerunners of Christian symbols used to this day.

I mention that because this time of year we frequently see Christmas abbreviated as X-Mas. Many people assume that this is an attempt to remove “Christ” from the season. In reality, this particular abbreviation has a long standing tradition in Christian literature. Evenso, many Christians feel that the culture is trying to minimize the central of Jesus and maximize festivities, commercialism and marketing. People think that because the culture is trying to maximize festivities, commercialism and marketing. So everywhere, something of a tug of war that usually gets portrayed as a culture war is waged in this country over the appropriate expressions of religion. Instead of crafting scenarios where we are the victims, perhaps Christians should learn from early generations and see in simple letters and figures, representations of Christ.

Mystal's Judgment of Helping and Moral Superiority

2011-12-06T08:00:00.000-08:00

Recently, Elie Mystal, a blogger for Above The Law, took issue with a column by George Will challenging Affirmative Action. The blog post started with the following paragraph and a half.

People who think giving charity to those less fortunate also gives them the right to direct the personal choices of those receiving the charity are some of the worst people on the planet. The biggest offenders are religious organizations: “Ooh, here’s some food. Yes. You like food, don’t you? I bet you’re hungry — I can tell ’cause I can see your ribs. Well, it’s all you can eat in here… first, just say you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. SAY IT. Wonderful. Bon appétit!”

Organizations do it all the time, but there are plenty of individuals who also think giving a guy a buck gives them the right to tell the recipient how to spend the money. This behavior is the worst because it takes what should be a generous gesture (giving somebody money) and turns it into a cheap way to make a BS point about your moral superiority (“If this man did just one thing more like me, he wouldn’t have to beg for my scraps.”).

The rest of the article was devoted to refuting George Will's stance against Affirmative Action. Mystal's specific arguments about Affirmative Action made sense to me though they were largely based on his summary of arguments made by one of his former professors. He didn't make it as clear in the argument why he distrusted Will's motivation. He had interacted with Will personally. Perhaps he knows something from those interactions that he does not spell out in this article. In any case, from my perspective the complexities of responsible charitable assistance and the complexities of Affirmative Action are too intricate to be grouped together in this manner.

Too much of his criticism hinges on his perceptions of people's motivations. Will is "disingenuous;" some people who give charity are really just advancing their own "moral superiority." Public argumentation about policies and practices should limit the scope of investigation to assessing the harms and benefits of particular policies or practices. People's true motivations are rarely clear to themselves and virtually inaccessible to others. Let's judge trees by their fruits rather than their sap. People can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and the right thing for the wrong reasons. In the end, it's the effect of what people do that can and should be scrutinized.

I have worked in professional Christian Ministry for twenty years. During that time, I have administered thousands of dollars of assistance on behalf of the churches I have served. I have never once treated a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as a prerequisite for giving assistance nor have I ever required someone to listen to a gospel presentation to receive assistance. I am familiar with the work of a number of Christian ministries. None that I know of require a confession of faith prior to giving assistance. A few--by no means the majority--do require people to listen to a gospel presentation first, but none requires acceptance of that presentation. Mystal's claim that "Organizations do it all the time . . ." is an assertion made without the benefit of concrete evidence.

The judgment that people who do this are among "the worst people on the planet" is an unjustified hyperbole. He claims that such people are driven by moral superiority. I agree that moral superiority is bad--by the way, I think Jesus felt the way Mystal does about moral superiority--but I'm not sure I'm prepared to condemn the morally superior in the hottest places of hell. At best, Mystal makes a good argument that people who oppose Affirmative Action are uninformed or misguided. The link between Affirmative Action and charity is not clear. Further, labeling the well-intentioned who attach strings to their assistance as "the worst people on the planet" would require greater detailing of the harms involved.

Finally, such an argument does little to aid a genuine dialogue on the ways assistance can be offered in helpful ways. Many people desire to be helpful, compassionate good neighbors AND unfortunately enact their helping behavior in unhelpful, prejudiced, judgmental and destructive ways. Many of the people inclined to help are also inclined to be self-reflective about their helping behavior. Repeatedly I have seen people engaging in helping behavior and simultaneously assessing their own embedded prejudices and assumptions. People are mixed bags and not as neatly categorized as heroes or villains in the way that Mystal seems to do.

In a complex world filled with challenging problems, the sort of unelaborated assertions given by Mystal frustrate people who are searching for ways to exercise their compassion in wise and truly helpful ways.

Reflection on Mark 1:35-39

2011-11-22T08:24:00.000-08:00

³⁵In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed. ³⁶And Simon and his companions hunted for him. ³⁷When they found him, they said to him, “Everyone is searching for you.” ³⁸He answered, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” ³⁹And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.

The patterns of regularly resting appear occasionally in the Gospels. Here and in Mark 6:45, Mark tells us that Jesus retreated to pray. When Mark tells the story of Jesus calming the furious storm, he explains that “Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. Disciples Bible scholars Gene Boring and Fred Craddock write, “At the very beginning of the narrative, Mark presents Jesus both as one filled with divine power who does what only God can do, and also as one distinct from God, a needy human being who seeks communion with God in prayer.” (People NT Commentary, p. 111). Jesus as a person made of flesh and bones had the same needs for rest and prayer as anyone else.

Resting is also portrayed in scripture as a divine activity. The Creator rested on the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exodus 20:11). The longest of the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:1-21) is the one most neglected—the command to take one day a week and give yourself and everyone else a break.

The context preceding this little story narrates the way Jesus traveled throughout the land healing those who were hurting or sick. Many interpreters suggest that the tension between Simon Peter and Jesus—they “hunted” for him after all—was due to competing agendas.

ost interpreters see this as a tension between the Disciples who want Jesus to set up shop, enjoy his popularity and Jesus who wants to extend the message to others--all?

What does all this mean for us? One of the big questions of Christianity is the significance of Jesus for us today. Jesus lived and died. That is an historical fact. But that his living and dying have some on-going importance to us is a statement of faith. What then is the on-going significance of the life, ministry, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Ask the question in almost any church in the southern part of the United States and the answer you’ll get back is “Jesus died for our sins.” This is certainly true but is it sufficient? Consider this passage from Dallas Willard, former USC professor of philosophy and spiritual formation expert.

There is absolutely nothing in what Jesus himself or his early followers taught that suggests you can decide just to enjoy forgiveness at Jesus' expense and have nothing more to do with him.

Some years ago A. W. Tozer expressed his "feeling that a notable heresy has come into being throughout evangelical Christian circles--the widely-accepted concept that we humans can choose to accept Christ only because we need him as Savior and that we have the right to postpone our obedience to him as Lord as long as we want to!" (I Call It Heresy, Harrisburg, PA.: Christian Publications, 1974, p. 5f) He then goes on to state "that salvation apart from obedience is unknown in the sacred scriptures."

This 'heresy' has created the impression that it is quite reasonable to be a "vampire Christian." One in effect says to Jesus: "I'd like a little of your blood, please. But I don't care to be your student or have your character. In fact, won't you just excuse me while I get on with my life, and I'll see you in heaven." But can we really imagine that this is an approach that Jesus finds acceptable?

And when you stop to think of it, how could one actually trust him for forgiveness of sins while not trusting him for much more than that. You can't trust him without believing that he was right about everything, and that he alone has the key to every aspect of our lives here on earth. But if you believe that, you will naturally want to stay just as close to him as you can, in every aspect of your life. (RENOVARE Perspective, Vol. V, No. 4, October 1995. First published in a Biola University bulletin. Available in The Great Omission, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006. complete article at: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=71)

Willard calls such disregard for Christian discipleship “Vampire Christianity”—it only wants the blood of Jesus. Jesus came not only be our Savior but also to be our Lord. The advocacy for Christian Discipleship—taking our daily commitment to living as Jesus would have us live—is not done so that we might earn our salvation. Salvation comes by grace—God’s free gift. But the one who made us and who loved us enough to die for us also knows us well enough to direct our path toward the most authentic life possible. Discipleship is our way to reach a truly joyful and authentic life.

Certainly obedience to Christ’s teaching is part of Christian discipleship. So also is following Jesus example. Jesus indicated that he had set an example for us in certain acts of service (John 13:14-17). And Paul emphasizes that the way Jesus died reveals how we should live (Philippians 2:5-11). The writer of Hebrews names Jesus as the “author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). First Peter also points to the example Jesus gave through his obedience in suffering as the path we also should follow. The line from Peter’s letter that we should following “in his steps” became the title for one of the most popular Christian novels ever written—Charles Sheldon’s In His Steps, who gave us the question “What Would Jesus Do?” So clearly, the New Testament suggests that parts of Jesus life—particularly the way he died on the cross—serve as examples for our own living. But can we claim that the whole of Jesus life serves as our example for godly living?

I believe the whole life of Jesus is exemplary. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). Gene Boring writes, “The call to adopt Christ as example is not analogous to ‘a child’s placing foot after foot into the prints of his father in the snow,’ (a quotation drawn from another writer), but more like making our own creative adaptation of a pattern” (Abingdon Commentary on 1 Peter, p. 90 in personal manuscript). The most common call Jesus gives in the gospels is “Follow Me.”

This perspective that Jesus sets an example for our whole lives is the basis for our Advent theme. Jesus is fully human and Jesus shows us how to be fully human. Jesus rested and paused, he prayed and lived a life of dependence, not only to because he himself experienced weakness or fatigue but also to reveal to us our needs to rest and reflect. Jesus gives the example of what it means to be fully human. It means that he was aware of his humanity, his need for boundaries, his dependence on God, and took intentional steps of faithfulness in order to place his humanness in the hands of God. We are called to be fully human, not super human. The life in the spirit is not ignorant of one’s own human needs. We place our needs before God. In the busy season that lies ahead, we often forget to breathe, to take time to be in God’s presence and truly restore ourselves. Jesus also sets the example for us of resisting the agenda of others when that agenda is not in line with God’s will for our lives.

Discussion Questions:

1. What does the phrase “Pause to Breathe” mean to you?

2. What are the ways you like to “Pause to Breathe”? Think about this question in terms of time available to you:

--Pausing to Breathe for 5 minutes.

--Pausing to Breathe for 1 hour.

--Pausing to Breathe for a Day (Sabbath).

--Pausing to Breathe for several days.

3. What barriers present themselves in your life as you seek to find time to pause to breathe?

4. What are the expectations people have of you that tend to pull you in different directions?

5. Do you find that pausing to breathe or having a regular time of prayer and meditation enables you to focus more clearly on the agenda God has set for you? Does it enable you to avoid the trap of being sucked into other people’s agenda for your life?

What the Soul is in the body the Christian is to the world.

2011-11-14T04:42:00.000-08:00

This week's goal is to listen to a sermon a day. Today, I listened to a sermon by Jim White of Southwest Church of Christ in Omaha, NE. I didn't know anything about the preacher or the church before I listened to the sermon. It's the first I found that looked worth the time when I went trolling for sermons in iTunes. It was a good sermon. But what I found most interesting was the quotation from "The Epistle of Mathetes to Diogenetus." He quoted a large portion from parts 5 and 6. It was an early defense of Christianity.

I appreciate the letter. At the same time, it reflects an anthropological dualism that sees the soul as good and the body or flesh as corrupt. But the bulk of the letter is poetic in its description of the ideal Christian. And well worth examination.

Experiment--Listening to Sermons

2011-11-12T18:50:00.000-08:00

My preaching professor in seminary required us to listen to or read a sermon a day for six weeks. I did not appreciate the exercise at the time as it conflicted with the myriad other things I also had to do at the time. However now, twelve years later, I will try this again--listening to one sermon each day this week.

Prayer for Stalcup Lecture

2011-06-14T07:43:00.000-07:00

Dr. Sharon Watkins delivered this year's Joe A and Nancy Vaughn Stalcup lecture on Christian Unity, June 12, at East Dallas Christian Church. As usual, Sharon did a good job. She's one of my favorite preachers. She reminded us that God's vision of the world calls us to live now as we sense God may want to be in the future. Ecumenism is not just about getting along but there is a future-orientation that our cooperation may be going somewhere.

I was given the assignment of praying the prayer of confession and offering the assurance of pardon.

Here's what I said.

Lord of Mercy and Compassion,

We come before you with recognition that we have not fulfilled Christ’s prayer that we would be one; our disunity and fragmentation comes at the expense of our most faithful witness. We confess to you that we have grown complacent in our efforts. We have stubbornly refused to change our patterns and move beyond our comforts even at the prompting of your Holy Spirit. We have longed for a future brighter than the past without assessing honestly the changes we need to make in the present. Remind us again that the call of prophecy is not to wait and see if prophecy comes true but to respond faithfully here and now. Lord, we so easily convince ourselves that because we have changed our attitudes we have changed our actions. We only recognize how entrenched our attitudes are sometimes when our actions are called to account. So, take our broken actions and attitudes, our apathy and stubbornness and heal and restore according to your will. Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

We remember the words of scripture that if we confess our sins God’s is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. God does not deal with us according to our sins but according to our potential for repentance. May we live in the grace our God provides.

Diagnosis

2011-05-09T20:36:00.001-07:00

North America is increasingly going to look like a mission field. (1) The narrative, formative rituals, virtues, and convictions of Christians will become less and less familiar to more and more North Americans. (2) The strategies of church growth that have driven church planning for the past 50 years will see declining effectiveness in the near future. They have, in fact, already started to see this decline. Church growth strategies assumed that full-formed Christians were looking for the best vendors of religious life and churches could effectively attract these potential clients through worship style upgrades and life-style appealing programming. As churches move into the future, we will discover that (a) we lack the resources for excelling with this approach to ministry; (b) the pool of fully-formed Christians is growing ever smaller (see #1). (3) Responding to this changing reality should not be motivated by the desire for organizational survival but must be motivated by a commitment to the Gospel. In short, we must be obedient even unto death. If we seek to hold onto our way of lives—the existing patterns of practicing faith—we will loose them. If we willingly relinquish our way of lives in preference for another way of life we feel is discerned as God's call, led by the Holy Spirit, in conformity to Christ, we will find our lives.

Seven/Eleven Songs

2011-04-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

I have heard a countless number of people refer to Praise and Worship songs as “Seven/Eleven” songs--“the same seven words sung eleven times” (ironically a seven-word statement). I thought it was witty the first time I heard it but, I've now heard it more than eleven times. The phrase tends to end conversations between members of a church who could be sharing spiritual journeys rather dismissing each other. So, I decided to do a little math.

The closest thing I could find to a list of the most frequently sung hymns was from a summary report concerning a Presbyterian Hymnal. I took the lyrics to these hymns and individually placed them in a text analysis tool that gave me the total number of words used, the total number of unique words (any word that's repeated was only counted one time), and several other statistics. I also calculated the ratio of words to unique words—the lower the ratio, the less often any single word was repeated. So, the higher the ratio of words to unique words, the lower the density. I did the same thing with CCLI Top 8 songs. I removed one of the CCLI top songs because it was a contemporary arrangement of Amazing Grace.

Below are my findings.

Hymn Name	Words	Unique Words	Hard Word	Ratio
Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound	99	72	2	1.38
Praise God, From Whom All Blessings Flow	25	19	1	1.32
Be Thou My Vision	134	71	3	1.89
Glory Be to the Father	31	22	1	1.41
Great Is Thy Faithfulness	123	83	6	1.48
Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!	127	68	7	1.87
Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee	185	116	3	1.59
Here I Am, Lord	167	67	0	2.49


Average Hymn	111.38	64.75	2.88	1.72


Mighty to Save	166	72	8	2.31
How Great is Our God	135	59	1	2.29
Blessed Be Your Name	214	67	5	3.19
Here I Am to Worship	242	72	4	3.36
Everlasting God	92	40	4	2.3
Your Grace Is Enough	173	54	2	3.2
Jesus Messiah	102	62	2	1.65
Holy is the Lord	119	41	3	2.9


Average Praise Song	155.38	58.38	3.63	2.66

You can see my work here:

As you can see, the hymns do have more unique words to total words—a lower ratio of unique words to total words. But the difference between 1.72 total words to 1 and 2.66 words to 1 unique word hardly warrants the claim of superiority. The average hymn used about 65 unique words while the average praise song used a little over 58 unique words--not that great a difference

Please understand that if I were forced to make a choice between singing only songs written before 1970—the year of my birth—or only songs written since 1970, I would choose to sing only songs written before I was born. I would do so sadly as there are many Christian contemporary songs that I treasure. Please also understand that I think the so-called worship wars of the 1980's and 1990's are not only done but completely irrelevant. Those who want to trumpet traditional hymns as essential to the preservation of the faith and those who want to trumpet contemporary praise music as essential for reaching today's audience have both missed the point. The church is called to praise and make disciples. God receives both traditional hymns and contemporary praise songs as expressions of praise and both are useful ways of fostering faithfulness. Either must be acquired by those coming into the church--we can't assume that either is inherently more useful for the church's mission. It's time to throw away the judgment line and start the conversation about what really matters—testifying to the capacity of diverse music and lyrics to aid our spiritual journeys.

Lenten Reading Plan through the Gospel of John

2011-02-19T21:06:00.001-08:00

Wednesday Mar 9, 2011, John 1:1-18

Thursday Mar 10, 2011, John 1:19-36

Friday Mar 11, 2011, John 1:37-51

Saturday Mar 12, 2011, John 2:1-22

Sunday Mar 13, 2011, John 2:23-3:21

Monday Mar 14, 2011, John 3:22-4:3

Tuesday Mar 15, 2011, John 4:4-26

Wednesday Mar 16, 2011, John 4:27-42

Thursday Mar 17, 2011, John 4:43-54

Friday Mar 18, 2011, John 5:1-16

Saturday Mar 19, 2011, John 5:17-30

Sunday Mar 20, 2011, John 5:31-47

Monday Mar 21, 2011, John 6:1-21

Tuesday Mar 22, 2011, John 6:22-27

Wednesday Mar 23, 2011, John 6:28-59

Thursday Mar 24, 2011, John 6:28-59

Friday Mar 25, 2011, John 7:1-13

Saturday Mar 26, 2011, John 7:14-36

Sunday Mar 27, 2011, John 7:37-53

Monday Mar 28, 2011, John 8:1-20

Tuesday Mar 29, 2011, John 8:21-37

Wednesday Mar 30, 2011, John 8:38-59

Thursday Mar 31, 2011, John 9:1-12

Friday Apr 1, 2011, John 9:13-34

Saturday Apr 2, 2011, John 9:35-10:18

Sunday Apr 3, 2011, John 10:19-38

Monday Apr 4, 2011, John 10:39-11:16

Tuesday Apr 5, 2011, John 11:17-32

Wednesday Apr 6, 2011, John 11:33-44

Thursday Apr 7, 2011, John 11:45-12:11

Friday Apr 8, 2011, John 12:12-26

Saturday Apr 9, 2011, John 12:27-43

Sunday Apr 10, 2011, John 12:44-13:17

Monday Apr 11, 2011, John 13:18-35

Tuesday Apr 12, 2011, John 13:36-14:17

Wednesday Apr 13, 2011, John 14:18-15:8

Thursday Apr 14, 2011, John 15:9-27

Friday Apr 15, 2011, John 16:1-22

Saturday Apr 16, 2011, John 16:28-17:5

Sunday Apr 17, 2011, John 17:6-23

Monday Apr 18, 2011, John 17:24-18:12

Tuesday Apr 19, 2011, John 18:13-27

Wednesday Apr 20, 2011, John 18:28-40

Thursday Apr 21, 2011, John 19:1-16

Friday Apr 22, 2011, John 19:16b-37

Saturday Apr 23, 2011, John 19:38-42

Sunday Apr 24, 2011, John 20

Monday Apr 25, 2011, John 21

Sabbath

2011-01-24T04:45:00.000-08:00

Christians tend to emphasize the importance of some commandments while almost completely ignoring some others. Ask people to name the 10 Commandments and people will almost instantly come out with: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal. But the longest of the 10 Commandments is actually the fourth commandment that talks about the Sabbath.

Not only that, the fourth commandment is not really about going to church on Sunday. It's about resting. It's about not doing work one day out of seven and letting other people get rest one day out of seven. The first three commandments deal with how one shows proper reverence to God. The last six deal with how we interact with others. The Sabbath commandment is the place where our reverence for God and our respect for one another meet. It's also how we show respect to ourselves as Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the sabbath.” Learning when to turn work off and when to pick it back up again is something that God has given to us as a gift.

Christmas Eve

2010-12-23T07:10:00.000-08:00

First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
910 S. Collins, Arlington, TX 76010

Christmas Eve Services

2:00 Service of Scripture and Song

5:00 Children and Story

7:00 Candlelight Service

11:00 Candlelight Service

Hear the Good News—Jesus Christ is our Emmanuel—God is with us

Pimento Cheese

2010-12-06T17:05:00.000-08:00

I made Pimento Cheese tonight. I decided that I should write down what I did in case I like it and want to replicate it.

4 Fresh Jalepenos Peppers, without pulp or seeds.
1/3 Cup Sweet Roasted Red Peppers
4 oz walnuts
12 oz Whipped Cream cheese
8 oz Colby Cheese
8 oz Cheddar Cheese
2.25 oz can of sliced black olives

I put the Jalepenos, roasted red peppers, some of the juice from the red peppers jar, in the food processor and chopped them, then added the walnuts and chopped a little more. Placed peppers, walnuts, and juice in a bowl with the whipped cream cheese and stirred until blended. I put the colby and cheddar in the food processor and chopped it until is had the large granular texture I like. I mixed that in with the cream cheese/pepper mixture. Finally, I drained the olives and added them. Salted and peppered to taste.

O Antiphons

2010-10-07T10:54:00.000-07:00

The Christmas Carol we know of as "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" is based on a monastic tradition from the medieval period of crafting "O Antiphons" around the names for Jesus embedded in the Old Testament. Here, to the best of my knowledge are all of the verses of "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" in the order of the original Antiphons. Along side these are scripture references related to the names.

O come, thou Wisdom from on high, who orders all things far and nigh; to us the path of knowledge show, and teach us in her ways to go.	Isaiah 40:3-5a Proverbs 8:22-36 (wisdom’s role in creation)	Colossians 1:15-20
O come, O come, Thou Lord of might, Who to Thy tribes on Sinai's height In ancient times once gave the law In cloud, and majesty, and awe. Traditionally one of the Antiphons relates Jesus to Moses	Exodus 20:1-20 Psalm 19, 145, 105	I am statements from John 8:48-59
O Root of Jesse, standing as a sign among the peoples; before you kings will shut their mouths, to you the nations will make their prayer: Come and deliver us, and delay no longer.	Isaiah 11:1-3, 10-11, Isaiah 52:13-53:6 Micah 5:1-5	Matthew 12:15-21 Revelation 5:1-5, 22:16
O come, Thou Key of David, come, And open wide our heavenly home Make safe the way that leads on high, And close the path to misery.	Isaiah 22:15-25 The phrase “key of David, comes from 22:22 but the context refers to a misuse of authority; too much weight placed on one person. Isaiah 42:1-9.	Matthew 12:22-32 Matthew 20:29-34 Matthew 22:41-45 Revelation 3:7-8
O come, thou Dayspring, come and cheer our spirits by thine advent here; disperse the gloomy clouds of night, and death's dark shadows put to flight.	Isaiah 9:1-7 Isaiah 58:6-9 Malachi 4:1-3	Luke 1:67-80 Hebrews 1:1-4
O come, Desire of nations, bind in one the hearts of all mankind; bid thou our sad divisions cease, and be thyself our King of Peace.	Haggai 2:1-9 Isaiah 28:16b-22	Matthew 25:31-46 t
O come, O come, Emmanuel, And ransom captive Israel, That mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear.	Isaiah 7:10-17 Isaiah 8:5-8	Matthew 1:18-25

Response to David Henson on Jennifer Knapp

2010-05-29T08:07:00.000-07:00

Recently, blogger David Henson of unorthodoxology wrote about the response Jennifer Knapp was receiving from Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) after revelations that she is Lesbian. I appreciated the blog article and the comments as it helped me understand what had happened to two of my favorite Contemporary Christian Musicians: Jennifer Knapp and Ray Boltz.

In the entry and the discussion, Henson argues that CCM's response to Knapp reveals a double standard in the way the CCM responds to a woman's sexual identity vis-a-vis their response to a man's. He uses Michael English as his principle point of comparison. English is a Christian Contemporary Musician who still enjoys broad popularity despite admitted adultery, drug charges and other rumors. I should explain that the term "Christian Contemporary Music" or CCM refers to the industry and not to all Christians nor all musicians who happen to be Christians or all musicians who perform music that is Christian. Water muddied enough?

In the comments following the article Henson wonders if the reaction to Knapp is an example of the double standard or an example of anti-gay sentiment among more conservative Christians. Undoubtedly it is both. However, the double standard and anti-gay sentiment operate at different levels of our consciousness. Few if anyone would openly argue for the moral appropriateness of a double standard. It exists for many at a more subconscious and unspoken level.

By contrast, the anti-gay sentiment is openly expressed by many Christian leaders--particularly evangelicals. While there is a general moral consensus against the double standard for men and women, there is not moral consensus around how the church should respond to gays and lesbians.

I think it's important to say that because I think it reveals the way bigotry and prejudice lingers. This is common sense but, I'll say it anyway: There's a long gap between the point where we officially express an openness toward a group we have previously condemned morally and the point where we actually internalize that openness in our day to day behavior. Ordained women clergy have been officially embraced in our theology and practice for decades. However, there remain churches and individuals who cannot or would not accept a woman as their senior pastor. They would never say that publicly but it operates below the surface. There are people who have open views regarding gays and lesbians in general who would nonetheless struggle emotionally if their son or daughter came out as gay or lesbian.

Removing legal structures and theological pronouncements that reinforce bigotry is an important first step toward realizing equality. But, we should never kid ourselves that those old bigotries leave our emotional and spiritual landscapes just because our theological and legal landscapes shift. As for Jennifer Knapp, she has unfortunately crossed expressed theological pronouncements about homosexuality and a lingering but submerged double standard for men and women.

Head Against Into Wall Syndrome

2010-05-05T07:18:00.000-07:00

The other day I caught a radio preaching offering a familiar diatribe against those who have placed career and success above family and faith. It came with the typical call for people to choose work that matters and lives that have meaning--significance rather than success. Aside from the obligatory stint in fast food and a couple of other jobs I had in route to ministry, I have always sought "significance" in my career choice--ministry and teaching. As I listened to this preacher extolling the virtues of the search-for-significance based life choices, I wondered if he wasn't selling a bill of goods that wouldn't deliver on the promises.

First, let's not sell the pursuit of wealth short. I realize being in ministry, I'm not supposed to make making money my main priority. It's a hypocritical standard we have in church. Generally people celebrate the fact that their work is valued enough to receive substantial pay for their work. Not in ministry. In ministry, if you expect a large salary, you soil the sanctity of ministry. Understand, by ministry standards, I am well-paid. Even then, the living made is a tenuous way to make a living. People who just work to make money and succeed at making a lot of it, have fewer anxieties, more freedom and greater breadth of experiences. Money can't by you happiness? OK, but the lack of money doesn't supply joy either.

Second, there's no guarantee that if you seek significance, you will find it. There are plenty of days when I have no sense that what I am doing matters to God, to God's Church or to the world. There are those who would say that that is only an indication that I am not seeking God's guidance on a daily basis--probably so. Nonetheless, things have to get done. And some of those things are tedious, spirit-draining and mindless. Essential but not significant.

Finally, the search of significance requires competence. Just as not everyone has the talent, luck and wisdom to make money so too not everyone has the talent, luck and wisdom to find meaning in what they do.

Righteous Sinners?

2010-04-02T04:15:00.000-07:00

I've never liked the bumper sticker which read, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." For one, it seems defensive. It is as though someone caught a Christian in the act of doing something unChristian, called them on it, and that was the response they gave. "Hey, I'm not going to do everything right just because I have faith. After all Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." When we are caught doing something unChristian, we need to apologize, confess our sins, receive God's forgiveness, and repent. In the face of what we need to do, the bumper sticker seems to be a less-than-sincere shortcut.

The bumper sticker seems to throw forgiveness back into the face of non-Christians. It's as if the bearer of the bumper sticker is saying, "We know we're forgiven, yes we do; we know we're forgiven, how 'bout you?" I'm not sure it projects the kind of attitude that really draws people to Christ.

Despite all my objections, though, the bumper sticker is rooted in Protestant Doctrine that I find important: Simul iustus et peccator. Which, ironically, has also been made into a t-shirt. The doctrine says that the Christian is simultaneously justified and a sinner. Apparently the term was coined by Martin Luther though the question is much older than that. For Centuries Christians have wrestled with the reality that despite the fact that Christians know what is right, they do what is wrong. Despite the fact that Christians know God's forgiveness they move away. "If we say we have no sin, they make God out to be a liar" (1 John 1:10). This isn't meant as an excuse for bad behavior on the Christian's part but a whispered prayer of both thanks and petition.

It is also not a reason to sit out the quest for moral perfection. Christians will never be perfect and we should not kid ourselves about our capacity. But the life of discipleship does mean that we continue to walk forward daily reaching for greater service and deeper purity day by day.

Torah Portions

2009-12-29T02:43:00.000-08:00

I hope you’ll forgive me should I mess up my description of things. I should point out that I am not an expert on Judaism. Several years ago, I took a book from my mother’s collection entitled Jewish Literacy. It’s by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. It is excellently written and incredibly helpful. I use it, more or less, as my definitive resource for understanding Judaism though I know I could benefit from a broader study and understanding.

Anyway, concerning the weekly Torah readings, centuries ago, the Rabbis divided the Torah into 54 weekly readings. Torah refers to the first five books of the Bible—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Jewish canon consists of the same 39 books that comprise the Protestant Old Testament. However, they are ordered differently and, of course, Jews do not call it the “Old Testament” (some important Christian biblical scholars would prefer that we stop referring it to the Old Testament as well). The whole Jewish Bible is sometimes called Tanakh. Tanakh is an acronym that stands for the three sections of the Jewish Bible (note: Protestants have five sections of the Old Testament): The first section is Torah—the first five books of the Bible. The second section is the Nevi’im (the Prophets)—Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve prophets. Finally, there are the Kethuvim or Ketuvim (the Writings)—Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles. The Ketuvim are not read from on a weekly basis per se but several make their appearance on special Holy Days. For example, Esther is always read as part of the Purim observance. Hence Tanahk refers to TorAh, Nevi’im, Ketuvim.

The Jewish canon is ordered in order of importance. So that greater importance is placed on the Torah, secondary value on the Prophets and tertiary value on the Writings. To my knowledge, the earliest reference to the three part structure of scripture came in an apocryphal writing known as Ben Sirach or just Sirach. In the prologue Sirach makes reference to the “Many great teachings” found in “the Law and the Prophets and the others” Similarly, I believe that when Jesus spoke of “the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:40) he was making reference to the understanding of the Jewish canon at the time.

The 54 weekly readings of scripture begin each year after the Jewish New Years that happens sometime in September each year. Because there are not normally 54 Sabbaths in a year some of the 54 readings double up on one of the weeks. Each of the 54 Torah readings is given a name. It’s usually the first word or first significant word in the Torah reading in Hebrew. Each Torah reading is paired with a Haftorah reading from the Prophets (Nevi’im). While the Torah portion is sequential—the 54 readings read straight through the Torah—the Haftorah portions are chosen because they relate to the Torah portion. For example, the reading on Vayeshev (Genesis 37:1-40:23) includes the story of Jacob and Tamar (Genesis 38). This sin is possibly referenced in Amos’s pronouncement against Israel in the corresponding Haftorah portion (Amos 2:6-3:8) in Amos 2:7.

The narrative, verbal and theological connections between texts within the canon is called “intertextuality.” To my mind, the best example of intertextuality at work comes in reference to the creed-like formula spoken in Exodus 34:6-7 and its parallel passage in Deuteronomy 15:10. Parts of this passage are quoted in Numbers 14:17-19; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 85:10-13; Psalm 86:5-19; Psalm 103:8; Psalm 145:8; Isaiah 54:9-10; Jeremiah 32:18; Lamentations 3:18-24; Hosea 2:19-20; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3. However, intertextuality is common in both testaments and across the testaments. It is the way that scripture interprets itself and even argues with itself. Lectionaries like the weekly Torah and Haftorah readings and the Revised Common Lectionary help to reveal this quality of scripture.

Scripture Reading Project

2009-12-29T01:13:00.000-08:00

I have recently embarked on a Bible reading cycle that involves reading through the assigned Torah and Haftorah readings from a standard Jewish reading cycle and reading through the Revised Common Lectionary portions. I’ll try to explain what those two cycles are in a later post. First my motivations for doing this:

Several months ago, I attended the Senior Pastor’s Luncheon. This is a gathering of pastors in Arlington who meet once a month for prayer, support, and networking. For the most part, these are ministers who do not desire to be a part of Arlington Ministerial Association. They are entirely protestant and largely evangelical (probably entirely evangelical). Needless to say, I have not made it a habit of attending in part because they were established as the alternative to an organization I was trying to sustain, in part because I didn’t know anyone, and in part because I’m busy. But, I decided to suck it up and go.

The conversation the day I went was on pastoral burnout. We got to discussing signs that we are burning out. One minister said that he knew if he preached from the same biblical text more than twice in a five year period that there was something wrong. It was his standard for himself. I don’t think it should necessarily be adopted by anyone else (nor rejected for that matter). The point I took from his comment was that when we return time and time again to the same biblical texts it may be a sign that something is missing.

On a side note, we would all agree that our personal psychological condition—whether we are in burn out, close to burn out, or feeling whole—does indeed influence our ability to do ministry. But this was the first time that I had ever heard anyone pinpoint selection of biblical texts for preaching as the place where that influence might be felt.

Needless to say the comment stuck with me more than anything else in the day’s conversation which I must admit was better than I thought it would be. Though I love scripture I’m quite guilty of relying too heavily on particular biblical texts to the exclusion of other texts. So in an intentional effort to expand both spiritually and as a pastor, I have decided to undertake this process of reading. Unlike a reading plan that would move systematically through the scriptures canonically, I have chosen these two patterned readings for liturgical and theological reasons. Both the weekly parshot ha-shauva or parshot as I’ll refer to it and the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) selections were made for worshiping communities. And both the Jewish parshot and RCL readings at least attempt an intertextual dialogue. For commentary on the weekly Torah reading see Jewish Theological Seminary's website. And for helpful resources for the Revised Common Lectionary, see Vanderbilt's lectionary site.

Sunday's Sermon

2009-10-26T07:45:00.000-07:00

Sunday's Sermon on Nehemiah 4:1-6 and Nehemiah 5:1-3, 6-7, 9-13. The sermon title was "Integrity in the Midst of Toil."

Attempt to Embed MP3 Player

2009-09-01T03:12:00.000-07:00

Outbound Ripples (mp3)

Sermon is based on Colossians 3:12-17

Third Sermon in The Shack Series

2009-07-24T13:13:00.000-07:00

Acts 17:20-25
July 19, 2009
Verbs and Other Freedoms

Dear First Christian Church Arlington,

I have been with you for some time now, visiting with you, trying to get you to talk to me. You seem like a friendly bunch of people, but you are a little confusing to me. So much of your life seems to be lived peering into windows of artificial light and pictures. I see how you carry with you small devices into which you speak or type in small messages—to whom are you speaking when you speak into these talismans? Are you speaking to your ancestors long since past? Or are your gods small enough to fit in the palm of your hands? Are these prayers you pray as you withdraw from the people right before you and stand far away from them to offer your acts of devotion? Others of you have larger altars of lighted pictures. I see how you give them central places in your living spaces. What a strange power they have over you that they draw your attention away from even your own family. Are these your household idols? In the altar’s windows people emerge and talk, they seem to want to tell you what to think, what to want, what to say, what to buy. It seems that you follow these teachers religiously for I see you buy what they tell you to buy, and repeat to one another the things you’ve heard them say, and I assume you think as they teach you to think. You seem surrounded by the altars of so many gods and you seem to run yourselves into the ground trying to please them all. I have seen some of you with your hands bound to your altars. Something has trapped your hands so that you are driven to form words on the screens of your altars. What happens to all these words? Who receives these prayers?

My background is one that condemns all idols. They have no hearts nor do they grant freedom. I was raised to see objects as created things and not the creator. It seems to me that idols and objects of devotion keep you enslaved to rituals that do not renew your spirits. They seem to bring you fatigue and separate you from each other.

I went around the corner from your place of worship and there I encountered the thinkers of your university. I met some who seem to believe that human life exists because of a natural chance. They remind me of the Epicureans I’ve encountered in other places. They seem to believe that human happiness can be achieved through the escape from fear and the superstitions of religion. They discipline themselves so that they can live the ideal life of tranquility without being terrorized by pain or poverty, loss or attack. They see the “unfailing spring of happiness in friendship” (F. W. Beare, Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary, E-J p. 123). They gather together in groups of friends and they join together in gardens and laugh with each other, eat with one another, support and encourage each other. They find within the lives they share with each other the fullest expression of happiness. Their gods seem to be faint pictures of happiness and tranquility, far off like fantasy tales. But, they do not believe in the possibility of a personal relationship with a god who talks with them. I have tried to speak to them about the one I have come to know in a personal way. But I don’t think they understand what I’m saying. Though they have asked me to talk more about it some other time.

There are some older members of the university community who are a bit more private. They invest almost all their time in the examination of facts. They seem guided by “hard rational principles and analytical observations and careful reasoning” (Wall, NIB, X, p. 244). They seem to see everything as containing the divine presence. They emphasize the importance of duty and measure duty by the fulfilling the assignments given to them and the assignments they give to others. They place a premium on virtue—on self-discipline and perseverance in creating intentional thinking and behavior. They seem to invest themselves in understanding, predicting and controlling the rules which govern the world and have divided this task up into areas of specialization—the physical world to the engineers, the social world to the government, economists and police; the bodies of people to medicine; and the aesthetic world to the arts. They seem to want a god who can also be completely understood, explained and controlled. I have tried to speak to them, also, about the one I have come to know in a personal way. But I don’t think they understand me either.

As I watch you, you also seem to be like them in many ways. Some of you invest a great deal of time and energy in being together, caring for each other and encouraging one another. You are to be commended for the community you share. Yet, even here God seems to some of you to be the portrait of ideal friendship and not actually your living, active friend. Others of you respond in more stoic fashion. You look for the clearest, most rational explanation. Your god seems to have a great mind but an absent heart. Here again, I commend you for your commitment to thought and to using the reason God has entrusted to you. But God is more than a theory. God invites us into relationship.

And so as I wander about among you who live there in Arlington it seems to me that you are indeed devoted to so many things. But if I may ask what receives your ultimate devotion? Superstitions and religiosity keep us captive through mindless rituals and paranoid fear. Technology seems to promise freedom but it has more certainly enslaved the bodies, hearts and minds of your generation. I fear that you do not realize just how captive you are to the altars of light, sound, and virtual emotions that you have created for yourselves. The world is bigger than your three inch cell-phone screen, or 14 inch computer screen or 50 inch television screen. Relationships with other people, though good and blessed, can be dangerous if they receive your ultimate devotion. The young people at the University may not have discovered this quite yet but surely many of you have—people will fail you at some point. Because we are human we will hurt each other in some of the most profound ways. The same is true for our ideas and our ideologies. Human minds are amazing creations but—like all things human—they are fallible, vulnerable to deception and error. Any intellectual system has its limits. Those limits enslave us if they receive our ultimate devotion.

But I see that there in the center of your worship space you have a table set in the name of the Crucified and Risen One. Perhaps you know of whom I speak, or perhaps he is one who comes to you as “Unknown.” But I wish to make known to you what I know of the One present at this table. You see, I was once a prisoner to a system of hatred and antagonism. I believed that my way was absolutely right and that I possessed the truth. I had done everything right, I believed. I lived up to the exact standards of my philosophy. I was such a strong believer in my system that I participated in hurting those who disagreed with me. I sought them out and tormented them. Then one day I had an encounter with the Crucified and Risen One. I was confronted with the prison I had chosen to live inside. I saw the chains of self-righteousness that shackled my heart. I imagined that God could be controlled, God could fit in the palm of my hand. But all my attempts to control God, manipulate God, were confronted one day. The Crucified and Risen one blinded me physically in order to help me see how I had distorted what God was all about. The religiosity that I thought I controlled really controlled me.

The Crucified and Risen One, the One whose table is in your worship space, revealed to me the freedom he came to bring. Indeed, there is one of your own writers who has written about freedom in a remarkable way—William Paul Young, I believe. In his book The Shack he writes about a man named Mackenzie who encounters the Trinity in much the same way I encountered the Crucified and Risen one on a Road to Damascus. He has written, “The truth shall set you free and the Truth has a name . . . Everything is about him. And freedom is a process that happens inside a relationship with him. Then all the stuff you feel churnin’ around inside will start to work its way out.” And elsewhere he has written, “Life and living is in him and in no other. Religion is about having the right answers, and some of their answers are right. But God is about the process that takes you to the living answer and once you get to him, he will change you from the inside.” Throughout this remarkable story God time and again reminds Mackenzie that faith in the Crucified and Risen One is not about religion its about a relationship. In that relationship we have freedom. That living answer is the Crucified and Risen one who came to me and set me free. And even though I’ve been in physical jails, prisons, and chains since that time, I know that I am free because I can freely choose to love God, worship God, trust God and obey God. My life emerges from the freedom to choose God and my free choice to follow God gives me my freedom from everything else that might enslave me.

We have the freedom to accept the relationship and the freedom to reject the relationship. Only, what I have discovered the hard way is this—when we reject the relationship that’s offered to us we reject the freedom as well. For there’s a longing within us for God that we will try to fill with other things—relationships, technology, entertainment, and even religion itself. But all these other things—though good when in proper perspective—make lousy gods. Idolatry binds us to hopeless cycles. Idols are the things we create and then give our ultimate devotion. They are limited because we are limited and they come from us. Those limitations will enslave us if we let them.

The Crucified and Risen One points us away from giving created things our Ultimate Devotion and bids us make the Creator the end of our ultimate devotion. I once spoke at the Areopagean Philosophical Society in Athens and there I said it this way, “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands—nor computers, televisions or cell phones. And he is not served by human hands as though he needed anything. God gives to everyone life and breath and everything else. God did this so that we would seek God and perhaps reach out for God and find God, though he is not far from each one of us. In God we live, and move, and have our being. In God we are set free from slavery and made heirs and children.” The Crucified and Risen One, the Living Answer, the One to whom your table belongs is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the truth and following his truth means finding your freedom.

Well, as you might imagine, my speech the Areopagean Philosophical Society didn’t go very well. I’m afraid that Jesus cannot be explained; He must be experienced. But the experience is more than worth it—it is the path and way to freedom. I hope you may experience it my friends at First Christian Church, Arlington, for you are freely loved and given freedom that you might love God freely. Greet one another in love for me.

Your Friend.

Second Sermon in The Shack Series

2009-07-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

Exodus 34:5-8
A Piece of Pi

I feel a bit like the the announcer from the old Saturday morning Western the Lone Ranger: When we last saw our hero . . . In this case, “our hero” is Mac the main character in William Young's novel The Shack. For the next few weeks, we are using The Shack as a helpful illustration of some biblical truths. When we last saw our hero, Mac, he had been invited back to the shack—the place of the worst event in his life, the abduction and murder of his youngest child three years prior to the start of the story. He's been invited back by “Papa,” his wife's name for God. And reluctantly he returns and discovers the Trinity waiting for him there. Over the course of the weekend, he has a remarkable encounter with Papa—God the father disguised as an African American woman, Saryu—the Holy Spirit in the appearance of an Indian woman, and Jesus Christ. Much of the story revolves around cooking and eating.

The chapter entitled “A Piece of Pi” begins that way. Mac was convinced to stay and begins his weekend with the Trinity by finding Papa cooking the Shack's kitchen which has been converted and decorated by the presence of the divine. “God,” Mac called rather timidly and feeling more than a little foolish,” “I'm in the kitchen, Mackenzie, just follow my voice.” He discovers Papa listening to interesting music which she describes, “West Coast Juice. Group called Diatribe and an album that isn't even out yet called Heart Trip. Actually, these kids haven't been born yet.” She describes the music as “Eurasian funk and blues with a message and a great beat.” Mac responds by saying that the music doesn't sound very religious and that he would have imagined God listening to George Beverly Shea or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir—churchy music. Papa responds, “You don't have to be lookin' out for me. I listen to everying—and not just the music itself, but the hearts behind it.” Then Papa responds with one of the singature lines from the book, “I'm especially fond of those boys.” As the story unfolds, the reader discovers that Papa is especially fond of a number of people.

It's a beautiful way to describe the love of God. We talk so much about “the love of God” that I think sometimes the phrase looses it's meaning. People can speak of the Love of God and still retain images of God that are harsh, unforgiving, bitter, and sadistic. To think of a God who is “especially fond” of you and me and indeed all those whom God has created expresses something more elegant about the tenderness, affection and desire God has toward us.

Our scripture reading from Exodus this morning may also need a “When we last saw our hero.” While Moses was on Sinai, the Israelites whom God had delivered from slavery in Egypt made a Golden Calf and worshiped it. In Anger, Moses broke the tablets of law that the Lord had given him. But in compassion for his people Moses returned to God and pleaded for forgiveness. God led them away from Sinai but continued to communicate with Moses in the tent of meeting, the Tabernacle. Chapter 33 says that God used to speak with Moses as one speaks to a friend (vs. 10). In this time of communion with God, Moses asked to see the Lord's face. God gently refused for no one can see God, he said, and live. But he allowed Moses to see his back. And as the Lord passed before him, God proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation.” Some regard that closing statement as evidence of God's essential judgmentalism. But notice the comparison that God's graciousness and forgiveness extends to a thousand generations and judgment lasts three or four generations. The emphasis is that God prefers love to judgment a thousand to four.

The point of this brief statement is that the basic nature of God is love. Old Testament scholar refers to the declaration in Exodus 34:6-7 as perhaps the closest thing the Old Testament has to a creed—a statement about the nature of God that is repeated throughout the faith life of the Old Testament people. By my count, reference is made back to these words at least thirteen times throughout the Old Testament [Numbers 14:17-19; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 85:10-13; Psalm 86:5, 19; Psalm 103:8; Psalm 145:8, Isaiah 54:9-10; Jeremiah 32:18; Lamentations 3:18-24; Hosea 2:19-20; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1;3]. Sometimes, the emphasis is indeed on God's capacity for judgment however, most often it is a reference to God's graciousness and love. For those of you who find The Shack a little too touchy feely, or artsy fartsy, or undefined. I would recommend a book edited by Evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock entitled The Openness of God. The Open View of God espoused by this group of writers is deeply committed to biblical authority but offers a challenge to traditional understandings of God. The “traditional” image of God that they challenge is the image of God as one who controls everything and that already knows the outcome of every decision and that is unfeeling and unchanged by the actions of God's people. This image of God, they painstakingly explain, emerges not so much from the biblical witness about God but more so from Greek philosophical influence on God. It is a Greek cosmology that assumes that for God to be “all-powerful” God must also be unemotional and unchanging and unchangeable.

In contrast, they say that “power” is not the biblical witness as the foremost attribute of God. They write, “The view of God and his relation to the world presented in this book . . . expresses two basic convictions: love is the most important quality we attribute to God and love is more than care and commitment; it involves being sensitive and responsive as well. These convictions lead the contributors to this book to think of god's relation to the world in dynamic rather than static terms.” (The Openness of God, p. 15). The love of God leaves God open to influence God's creatures but also to be influenced by us. In contrast to seeing history and the future as the unfolding of a divinely predetermined script, “History” they declare, “is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do.” The open view of God appeals to me for a number of reasons. It is not “liberal theology” which doesn't bother me as much as it bothers other people. Liberal theologians have much to teach all of us if we will set aside the biases that labels generate for us. But, I am personally too bound to biblical authority to place myself within that camp of theologians. The open view of God is written by others who regard scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and practice. But staying with that framework, they also regard much of what we have inherited as not a truly biblical image of God but rather the influence of surrounding culture. The world only thinks in terms of power over—the Supreme Being must be one with Superior power. Within the Kingdom of God, we think in terms of ultimate love where the Supreme being Superior power. This reassessment of our image for God has profound implications for how we practice our faith and understand faith.

Pi or π is a symbol for the number 3.14159. and is a ration of a circles circumference to is radius—hence Circumference = pi times radius square. OR πr2. But the “A Piece of Pi” is a play on words. Pi is one of the most important mathematical concepts. But Pie is one of the most important culinary concepts. Without PIE there'd by no Pecan Pie, Apple Pie, Coconut Cream Pie, and no quiche. The play on words is a reference to attempts to explain the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of mathematics or geometry or chemistry. The doctrine of the Trinity is Christian theology's attempt to understand God as both one and three—there is one God that is the central belief of Christian faith as a faith that belongs to the streams of monotheistic religion. Yet, we speak of God as manifested in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We have tried over the years to explain this in terms of chemistry—Water can be solid ice, gaseous steam, and liquid—one substance in three forms. St. Patrick was famous for using a clover to explain the doctrine of the trinity. But ultimately all the analogies drawn from chemistry or geometry begin to break down. They may explain the “how” of a Trinitarian conception but they do not explain the why.

The why is understood best in terms of Love. Before God created us to be loved, God had a love within God's self. As Mac asks God, “What difference does it make that there are three of you, and you are all one God. Did I say that right?”
“Right enough.” She grinned, “Mackenzie, it makes all the difference in the world. We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am three persons, and each of three is fully and entirely one. If I were simply One God and only One Person, then you would find yourself in this Creation without something wonderful, without something essential even. And I would be utterly other than I am” Mack asks, “And we would be without . . . .?”
“Love” Papa responds.
“Unless I had an object to love—or more accurately, a someone to love—if I did not have such a relationship within myslef, then I would not be capable of love at all. You would have a god who could not love. Or maybe worse, you would have a god who, when he chose, could only love as a limitation of his nature. That kind of god could not possibly act without love, and that would be a disaster. And that, is surely not me” (p. 102).

Young narrates here an Augustinian understanding of the Trinity. Augustine spoke of God the Father as the Lover, God the Son as the Loved, and God the Spirit as the Love that Spirit as the Love that is shared between them. By creating the world through the Son, God creates the world in love. And by sending the Son to the World, God enfolds us in God's love. The Doctrine of the Trinity is not Christian divine chemistry or geometry. It is Christianity's way of singing the old, old song, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and faithfulness.”

First Sermon in "Messages from the Shack"

2009-07-24T12:51:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, I posted a few critical posts about William P. Young's book The Shack. I said then how much I really appreciated the book but needed to get some ideas out before being more constructive. Well, here is the first of four sermons I preached this month as a way of addressing the book in more constructive fashion.

Voice of a Nova
Isaiah 55:6-9; Exodus 20:1-7

This week, I have been at Niners Camp. I was keynoting. Keynoting is when you're the preacher for the week. But preacher has a bad connotation so we call it keynoting. At this camp, I spoke twice a day. That's roughly equivalent to 10 sermons in one week. Needless to say, I borrow pretty generously from sermons I preached here and yes, our youth did call me on those. During one of the keynotes, I asked the niners to write down words associated with, descriptions of and names for God. Then I talked about how our words associated with, descriptions of and names for God fall into two big categories—BIG WORDS, NAMES, AND DESCRIPTIONS for God and NEAR WORDS, NAMES and DESCRITIONS for God. In academic theology, we would call “Big” words for God “Transcendent.” They are words like Almighty God, omniscient, omnipotent, Lord. Near words for God we would call “immanent.” These are words like “Father,” “Love,” and “Sustainer.” So, they had their list of words and I asked them to write a “B” beside all their “big/transcendent” words and and “N” beside their “near/immanent” words.

In our scripture reading from Isaiah this morning, we have both the Big God and Near God portrayed. This section of Isaiah is often called “Deutero-Isaiah.” The whole book of Isaiah has sixty-six chapters just like the Bible has sixty-six books. And there's a definite shift between chapter 39 and chapter 40 just as there is a break between the first thirty-nine books of the Bible—called the Old Testament and the later 27 books of the Bible called the New Testament. In the first part of Isaiah, the work addresses those whose future looks bleak because they are on the verge of the Babylonian captivity and dealing with the moral-political crises that preceded the deportation caused by the Babylonians. But much time separates the address of Isaiah chapters 1-39 and the address of Isaiah 40-66. These later chapters address those who are already “captives” in Babylon and seeks to give them hope, reassurance of God's love, and a call to repentance as their way forward and out of captivity. One of the themes emphasized in Deutero-Isaiah is the theme of the word of God which is understood not so much as a written word of God but rather God's intention lived out in the might deeds of God. This is the theme in Isaiah 55 where Isaiah declares the word of the Lord is like rain that comes down from heaven and brings life. The word will accomplish what God intends for the word to accomplish.

The big God, whose word formed the world and whose word delivered the people. This big God will draw near and forgive. This big God will draw near and be found. “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near;” God will abundantly pardon. Pardoning is something God does to draw near to us but abundantly pardoning is what a a Big and Near God does. Yet this near God remains the God whose thoughts are not our thoughts, whose ways are not our ways, who is as beyond us as the utter reaches of the universe are beyond us. So the youth were writing these descriptions of God and labeling their words “B” or big or “N” for near. And as they were doing this, one of the youth blurted out, “What if all my words are “Big” words for God. Hopefully, I suggested to her that she borrow some “near” words for God from a neighbor. Our language for God needs both “big” images for God. If we have only “near” images for God we run the risk for forgetting God's authority and our need to obey. God's might and our need to revere. If we have only “big” images for God we run the risk of neglecting God's love which is his ultimate description and we may not come close to God to reach for God and find God which is why God created us in the first place. Only a near God can hear you cry in captivity in your Babylonian captivity. Only a big God can do anything about it.

Yet so often, our language for God gets bogged down in our favorite words and images for God. We develop patterns and habits and speak of the Lord in redundant terminology. Habits of speech reflect habits of the mind. Change some of your speech habits and you change the way you think about something. I believe this, by the way, about other things if you will intentionally seek out new language describe things with which you think you are already familiar, you will find new insights and new knowledge in the process. Your family, or your finances, or your career, or your artwork, or your music or whatever see what happens. How do you see your children differently if you speak of them as your grandchildren's parents? How do you see your friends differently if you speak of them in terms of someone's son or daughter. Change the habits of your language and you will change the habits of your thoughts.

That may or may not be helpful to you in relation to those other areas of your life. But rethinking the habits of our mind is essential in relation to God. We read Exodus 20:1-7, the first three commandments in the Ten Commandments. These four commandments deal with how we understand God, speak of God, relate to God. They could be summed up like this: Don't treat God's authority, God's name or God's image as YOUR property. They belong to God and God alone. This includes the way God is understood in your own mind. It includes the way that God is spoken of in your own speech—even within your mind, even within your speech, the words you use for God the thoughts you have about God belong to God. And the God proclaimed in the Ten Commandments says you don't get to settle on one image for me—an idol, a limited set of descriptions, a small-sighted vocabulary—and say, “that's it, I've got a complete handle on God.” Stretching our images and understanding of God is not just for young people. It is an act of obedience to the God who delivered us and who has declare I will not allow you to narrow my scope. My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts.

This Sunday, we begin a sermon series entitled “Messages from The Shack.” The Shack is a book by William Paul Young. The author himself has six grown children. His wife repeatedly urged him to write down his theology for his kids. He didn't quite know how to do it. He is not a professional theologian or even a paid minister. He is a man who was hurt very deeply and painfully as a child. He is a man who hurt someone very deeply and painfully as an adult. He's a man who has been forgiven by the one he hurt and has learned to forgive those who hurt him. And so rather than try to explain all that in complex academic theological language. Young decided to write a story about a man who has five children. His main character is a man named Mac and unlike Young whose pain and mistakes were stretched out over decades. Mac's pain is compressed into a few years. While on a camping trip out in the wilderness, Mac's youngest child, Missy, is abducted and after a lengthy search she is presumed dead. Young's own pain and sin do not revolve around an abduction so there are many things about the sorrow of loosing a child that Young's novel does not address nor really understand. But it does a wonderful job addressing issues of rebuilding ones life in the face of evil done to and evil done by a human.

Three years after the abduction and death, Mac is invited back to the scene of the abduction, a place in the wilderness that looks like a Shack—hence the name the Shack. The “invitation” is strange and cryptic and unsettling. It comes in the mail during a Montana snow storm when no mail was being delivered. It comes from one “Papa” which is the name that Mac's wife Nan uses to describe God. After deep inner-turmoil, fears that he might be being set up by Missy's murderer, and some soul-searching, Mac decides to accept the invitation. When he arrives there, he encounters the Trinity. Papa—God the father, appears to him as a larger African American woman with a deep laugh, a healing hug, a hug tenderness, and scars on her hands and feet. God the son is what you might expect—Jesus Christ wearing Jeans and a flannel shirt. The Holy Spirit appears as one Saryu. She appears as a woman from India. And the name she goes by is Saryu which is a word from one of the languages spoken in India that means the wind. It is the sort of wind that catches you by surprise and refreshes you. One of the hurdles that readers have to get past in reading The Shack and receiving it is that it presents images for God that most of us have not pondered before. But in one important scene, Young helpfully narrates that these are only the images of God that Mac needed at the time. They are, in truth, the images Young needed in his moment of need. They are not meant to hardened and formed into absolutes any more than any other image for God should be used as an absolute image for God.

Papa explains to Mac that given his own tortured, tormented relationship to his father had God the Father come tom Mac as a masculine Father image, Mac would not have been able to accept God and relate to God. Indeed, Mac came from an abusive relationship with his father. One he ran away from when he was just fourteen years old. The healing for Macs heart and spirit needed to begin with a new way of thinking about God a new way of understanding and responding to God. Books like the The Shack are invitations for us to rethink our understanding of God. They are opportunities for us to consider the images, and language for God.

In this church, from time to time, the discussion has been had about our over-dependence on “Father” as a name for God—particularly in our prayers. We who pray in public for the whole congregation have a responsibility not only to consider our language but the language that we use as a whole people. When we rely to heavily on a limited number of descriptions for God we unintentionally limit the congregation's perception of God. The repeated description of God as “Father” is deeply painful for some who have difficult relationships or pasts with their father. It is problematic because Father is a masculine term and God is both masculine and feminine. In the opening chapter of Genesis the book explains, that God created us in God's own image—male and female. God's own image Genesis 1:26 explains, is both male and female. Our language needs to expand to make room for the breadth of God. I want to try to stress this point. On July 4th, when we have been celebrating our Nations freedom and Independence. It is easy for us to get sidetracked by this conversation and think it has something to do with politics or pushing a theological agenda. It is not for me something that is born out of political correctness. It is for me a deeply personal journey and understanding. The reason I try to avoid referring to God as “He” is not because I'm worried about offending people. The fact is I know quite well that my efforts not to refer to God as “He” offend people. I'm not trying to offend but I know that it's uncomfortable for people. But my own journey grew—painfully and fitfully but fruitfully—when I changed the language I use to describe God. We use “he” “she” and “it” to describe things that belong to this world and that God as one who created all the “hes” “shes” and “its.” But God God's self is not created. Creation does not contain the creator; the creator contains creation. And so I tried to convert my language to reflect the radical otherness, the bigness, the not bound by creation-ness of God by shifting my language for God.

Now, I just told you that this was not political so it may be odd for me to conclude with a reference to our founding political document. But, I believe the constitution of the United States is one of the truly great documents in human history. Rarely, if ever, has human history seen a situation where a people won their independence through war and did not subsequently dissolve into violence. Because of the steadfast, humble, and wise actions of our nations founders, the United States stands as a rare exception to the human tendency. Similarly, when governments organize themselves they tend to want to accumulate as much power for themselves. But when our constitution was formed, the final words were words that limited the government's power—it's that miraculous portion of the Constitution called The Bill of Rights. The first of which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The freedom of religion—the first right guaranteed; freedom of speech and writing, and assembly, and protest. They belong together. The framers themselves understood the connection between how we practice our faith and how we speak. How we relate to God and how we gather with others. They protected all of that in what might generally be described as the Freedom of the Mind, the Freedom of the Spirit. The Constitution expresses our collective desire to protect a Freedom that emerges from God's own character—God has given us freedom to think and speak in flexible ways because God God's self is flexible and expansive. Ever willing to draw near to us but never willing to be contained by us. Amen.

Voice of Reason

2009-05-29T19:43:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kristof has written a helpful column combining the possible biological connections of liberalism and conservatism and an appeal for open mindedness.

Where I'm At

2009-05-07T20:12:00.000-07:00

I don't like the idea of two introspective blogs in a row but, I need to put this somewhere.

At various points in my life, I've looked at myself and wondered how I became "that guy." This happens to most of us who are parents when we hear our own parents coming out of our mouths. I have friends here are more intentional about not being like their own fathers. I think the only way I have surpassed my Dad is that I can truly say I've got better jokes. Not that my jokes are funny necessarily just better than my Dad's. Still, I listen to myself with my kids and wonder sometimes how I became, "That guy."

In seminary, I became obsessed with my GPA and how I was evaluated by seminary professors. I got through high school and college without being that guy--mainly because I didn't realize I actually had the academic skills to be "that guy" until I was basically done. But I somehow became the seminary equivalent of a GPA-hoarding, class-rank obsessed wussy. Toward the end of my seminary education, I wondered how I became, "that guy."

It's happening again but surprisingly I'm watching it coming and not filled with the same remorse. I never wanted to be "that guy" who worried about attendance, membership and baptism numbers. I never wanted to be "that guy" who sacrificed faithfulness for the sake of effectiveness. I never wanted to be "that guy" who thought of "church growth" as a central component of ministry. I had all the noble sounding reasons for not wanting to be "that guy." But, I think at the end of it all, I feared that if I tried to be "that guy" and failed, that the failure would mean a rejection of me. If I tried to increase average worship attendance and failed, I might have to face the reality that people just don't want to be around me. Underneath all the high-minded, holy-sounding reasons for not emphasizing church growth, I'm really just insecure.

But the church cannot continue to decline. Something needs to be done. So, I'm becoming "that guy." That guy who does care that our average worship attendance gets stronger. That guy who does worry about membership, new member retention, effective public face for the church, high quality communication pieces, and attractive programming. There are some things I'm trying to do alongside being "that guy" to respond to the more legitimate critiques of being "that guy."

When people ask me about "how many joined," I'm trying to respond with names and stories not numbers.

When we talk about the church's decline, I'm trying to give positive reasons for First Christian Church's existence--that we are the church the offers an open table, we are the church that encourages people to show Christ's love in simple and tangible ways, that we are the church that calls other Christians to work toward true unity and not just cooperation to achieve a shared goal. We are the church that offers a Christianity that is neither dependent on emotional conversion story nor demanding of a systematic theology (OK that was stated as a negative). We are the church that talks about Christian faith with a simplicity modeled by the New Testament. We cannot become the church that worries about its own survival. That's just bad Karma waiting to happen.

I'm trying to infuse all of the work with prayerful activity.

I'm admitting that when I was trying not to be "that guy" I did identify some problems that emerge in come with being "that guy." But, I'm also admitting that my motivations may have been more self-centered and self-indulgent than I really want them to be. This is the time to faithfully pursue effectiveness.

The efforts we are trying now may still turn out to be catastrophic failures. I'm not particularly good at being "that guy" having never really tried before. It will take more than me being "that guy" it will take us becoming "that church" to truly grow and retain new members. But if we deny the blessings of our church's fellowship, the grace of our shared ministries, and most of all the access we have to Jesus Christ, all because we don't want to be "that guy," then I think we may have committed bigger sins.

Sign of the Age

2009-04-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

I've decided I must be old. A song came on the radio yesterday. My daughter bounced along as though she like it. I thought it was mindless--Sign one that I'm OLD. I think much of "today's" music is hopelessly banal, lacking any musicality, and far too dependent on computer programming and pop media hype. Since my musical sensibilities came of age in the 80's I do recognize the irony in all of it.

Then the song hit the "bridge" maybe the "chorus" I'm not sure. The "singers" repeatedly said, "Shush girl, shut your lips/Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips." I didn't know who the band was at the time. I guessed they were young and mean-spirited. The song was recorded by a Colorado band called 3Oh!3 and is entitled "Don't Trust Me." I quickly told my daughter to turn the station. She's fourteen and is going to listen to what she wants but I can at least register my disapproval and bad moral content. I rattled off some diatribe against a culture in which nothing seems sacred. Sign two that I'm old--I actually think some things ARE sacred.

Today, I watched the video on MTV's website--Sign three (only old people still use the internet to "research problematic manifestations of abhorrent pop culture
"). I read the lyrics of the song (sign four). And then I decided to write this blog--sign five. Old people write blogs. Young people have discovered how to express themselves adequately in 140 characters or less.

But I remember, here's the big sixth sign that I'm old. I thought it disrespectful to say "do the Helen Keller" as though this American woman who confronted being both blind and deaf yet managed to learn to communicate, inspire and lead could be reduced to a spasmodic dance move. But I also remember retelling those really insensitive jokes back when I was young. I remembered and I regretted past young, mean-spirited, dumb-ass things I said a generation ago (I'm now 20+ years removed from my 18th birthday).

So, there you have it. 3Oh!3 has served one useful purpose in the world. They have opened my eyes to the fact that I'm old.

Experimenting

2009-04-15T06:39:00.001-07:00

Logos has provided a new gadget that enables blog posters to display the biblical text of references they use. It's called RefTagger

I have discovered that you can change the translation it shows. The default setting is ESV but I was able to change it to TNIV. I did not see NRSV as an option. It connects to bible.logos.com which I have found to be a very helpful online Bible.

Matthew 6:33
John 3:16
Luke 15:1-8

Moral Behavior

2009-04-13T20:15:00.000-07:00

David Brooks April 6, 2009 column reflects on the relationship between moral reasoning and moral decision-making. He quotes Michael Gazzaniga’s book Human. “It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.” Contrary to making moral decisions based on moral reasoning Brooks writes, “Moral judgments . . . are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.” Consequently, he suggests, that moral reasoning is a subsequent process once decisions have been made and not the guiding discipline moral philosophers had hoped it would be.

He goes on to label this understanding of humanity morality as the “evolutionary approach to morality” and names three “nice things” about the approach. These nice things include emphasis on social construction of morality or cooperation, a humanizing of humanity, and a reasonable explanation for the irrational nature of human decision making that does not destroy individual responsibility. Brooks assesses this new approach to morality as “an epochal change” as it challenges among other things those of us who are invested in the “hyper-rational scrutiny of texts.” I have not invested time in studying the developments and reports which Brooks bases this development on so I can only respond to how he summarizes it. However, I am not convinced that this approach is either new nor particularly contrary to the way I understand a Christian view of morality.

First, I’m not sure the idea is all that new. Cicero wrote in De Oratore, “Men decide far more problems by hate, or love, or lust, or rage, or sorrow, or joy, or hope, or fear, or illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, or authority, or any legal standard or judicial precedent, or statute” (2.41.178). So if I am correct in linking the view expressed in Cicero’s rhetorical dialogue with the evolutionary approach to morality, then it does not seem to be as revolutionary as it appears. The explanation of human behavior has been with us as least 2100 years. NOTE: It could be that what Brooks thinks is epochal is not the concept itself but its widespread acceptance.

Similarly, the Apostle Paul lamented, “The good that I would do, I do not. And that which I hate, I do” (Romans 7). Pauline anthropology resembles this view of the dominance of emotional reaction over moral philosophy in actual moral behavior. The modification brought by a New Testament understanding of humanity is simply that people can—through conversion and sanctification—cultivate new emotional reactions through processes of the spirit.

So, this may not be as challenging to existing models of moral reasoning as Brooks suggests. Among those challenged by this approach include new atheists who may naively assume the purity of their reasoning, the “Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts” and traditional moral philosophy. I’m not sure why Brooks chooses to name only the Talmudic tradition among those who approach moral reasoning via hermeneutics. Perhaps it’s so that when Christians like me object he can say, “Well, I wasn’t really talking about you; now was I?”

However, I would say that if I have understood what Brooks’s is labeling the evolutionary approach to morality correctly then it is not much different than the views of Howard Stone and Jim Duke in their basic text, How to Think Theologically. Stone, a pastoral care professor and Duke a Christian theological historian both a Brite Divinity School (my alma mater) provided this text as a basic introduction to applied theology (i.e., the kind of theology you practice in the church). They introduced the concept of embedded theology and critical theology. Embedded theology is the theology that governs our prayer life and those snap moral decisions. Our critical theology is an intentional identification, assessment, and critique of our embedded theology. However, they stress that the influence of critical theological work to our embedded theology is never direct. Critical theological work impacts embedded theologies slowly and over time.

I cannot name a serious Christian theological thinker and certainly no practicing minister who believes that moral behavior can be instantly changed through the cognitive processes of moral philosophy. It takes disciplined practice to reform embedded theological reactions and behaviors. Only behavior can reform behavior. Brooks seems to want to say that the evolutionary view of morality is not deterministic. People can make choices. I believe Christian spiritual formation view of people would argue that making new moral choices is about re-shaping the human emotional structures through specific practices not through complex moral philosophy.

I have no interest in defending the traditional practice of moral reasoning which Brooks thinks is jeopardized by these new developments. Ministry is not applied philosophy but applied theology and the two are not synonymous. But, I also don’t know that what he’s said challenges much in terms of the way practicing ministers approach the moral formation with people.

Possible Research Project

2009-04-01T11:25:00.000-07:00

Pundits are those journalists who make a living offering opinions. In our culture war mentality, we have pundits on the left and right who offer their opinions for mass consumption. In doing so, they engage in argumentation.

Argumentation is serious business but it is not an exact science. Rhetoricians and others who study argumentation try to provide some guidance and part of that guidance comes in the form of identifying reasoning fallacies, moments where speakers/writers/advocates shortcut reasonable thinking and build an argument using questionable building materials. I learned about these from what remains my favorite public speaking textbook The Speaker's Handbook by Jo Sprague and Douglas Stuart. Short, concise, unadorned. Truth be told, all of us who communicate with any regularity succumb to reasoning errors. Ultimately most arguments break down somewhere along the line. At some point, we make the leap from verifiable fact to value judgment that is at the heart of inferences. Inferences are necessary if we are going to do anything with facts. That leap is often emotional and difficult to justify. So, reasoning fallacies happen as a natural course of communicating.

But it seems to me that reasoning fallacies are especially common among pundits particularly among pundits who view America as divided between liberals and conservatives in an intractable culture war. I'd like to test a hypothesis. Here's my hypothesis: Pundits whose frame for moral/political/ethical/religious discourse is shaped by the culture war metaphor commit logical fallacies as part of their rhetorical strategy.

Testing this hypothesis involves several steps.
Step 1--creating an operational definition of "culture war metaphor."
Step 2--identifying pundits whose frame for moral/political/ethical/religious discourse is shaped by the culture war metaphor.
Step 3--code samples of pundits work for examples of reasoning fallacies.

If it can be shown that the norm among culture war pundits is to rely on reasoning fallacies, then I can conclude that reasoning fallacies are indeed engaged as culture war rhetorical strategy.

I may need to add a step of identifying those who reject the culture war metaphoric frame and code their work as well. Compare sample groups.

James Rainey on "Good News"

2009-03-26T06:56:00.000-07:00

James Rainey writes a column for the Los Angeles Times. His opinions focus on developments in the media itself--changes in NPR's coverage, shifting foci at newspapers, etc. His editorial from Wednesday, March 25, 2009 discussed a topic of importance to me--Good News. He, of course, was actually talking about news being reported through typical news venues--newspapers, television, radio--that actually describes good things taking place. He made no reference to the theological concept of that "Gospel" means "Good News."

Rainey gives some recent examples of Good News reporting. Brian Williams, anchor of NBC Nightly News, recently asked for and then reported stories of people responding positively during negative times. The Cape Cod Times recently ran a picture of the first crocus in bloom on its front page, apparently a minor victory for on of its editors. But the largest portion of the column described an award-winning journalist named Frank Greve.

Frank Greve writes for the California-based newspaper publishing company McClatchy. Greve went on the "Good News" beat some years ago. Initially, his shift in focus received an negative reaction from colleagues. But eventually, they started to appreciate his work because he "still reported and wrote with rigor." Rainey wrote:

"Greve has noted how delayed licensing of drivers has driven down the teenage accident rate. He's written about how many old people remain sexually active. He's raised doubts about whether we should really need to worry about pharmaceutical contamination in drinking water.
That list of topics might seem like a hodgepodge, but there's a common theme. Bad news grows out of conflict or loss. Good news often means just following the conflict through to a resolution." (emphasis mine)

That assessment, that good news is often the resolution of what initially seemed like bad news, is a good word for me. There are obvious parallels here to the arc of Passion and Resurrection; Good Friday and Easter. However, I'd resist reducing our understanding of those events to the level of day-to-day news. But I find the reframing helpful. In my mind, there's been a line of demarcation between "Good News" and "Bad News." Rainey's statement shifts the metaphor so as to suggest that good news and bad news belong to the same narrative axis.

In one of my favorite studies of Metaphor in Ortony's Metaphor and Thought, Donald Schon describes how those dealing with community problems can empower themselves to see new solutions if they will shift the metaphors they use to describe the "problem." He talked about the difference between seeing a neighborhood as "broken" versus seeing a neighborhood as "developing." This is more than wordsmithing a more positive spin on problems. By seeing a neighborhood as "developing" he said, community workers begin drawing from a very different set of models, resources, and case studies in order to bring about positive change.

Similarly, I think Rainey's insights suggest a way of rethinking the "problem." The dichotomy between "bad news" and "good news" that I had been clinging to framed our situation in static terms. Rainey's way of thinking introduces the idea of movement, the potential born in every moment for change. Yes, to be realistic we must accept that "good news" is also on a narrative axis with "bad news." Situations will change--sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better. But here and now, it is at least hope-producing and I think tangibly helpful to reframe our current problems as developing good news.

Pitts on Church Decline

2009-03-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

An editorial by Leonard Pitts suggests that recent declines in religious affiliation among American adults has its root cause in the ugliness that religion has become. This, of course, has been the critique for centuries. Pitts runs through the typical--albeit dated--litany of religious offenders: Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, religiously motivated terrorists, churches that deny access to Democrats and gays, advocates for the 10 Commandments in courthouses, priests guilty of and a church complicit in pedophilia, and religiously motivated councils and organizations pressuring schools. He failed to mention the six televangelists recently under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee for inappropriate use of contributions and the now two-year old scandal involving former National Association of Evangelicals president and mega-church pastor, Ted Haggard. When issuing a wake-up call, its best to be a little more up-to-date.

Pitts is grateful that he knows more about God than what he sees in the well-publicized scandals. Apparantly, he is a rare bird. All of those other people who are leaving the church are just not as enlightened. Unlike Pitts himself, they have been burned by religion but not warmed by God directly.

This is one of those situations where I think a journalist thinks someone else's business is far less complex than his own.

Pitts writes for newspapers. Traditional newspapers are declining at an even faster rate than churches. Are newspapers declining because of incompetent reports and the scandals of fabricated news reports? Is Jack Kelley--the former USA Today reporter and Pulitzer Prize nominated journalist who was discovered to have fabricated news stories--to blame for people's loss of faith in newspapers? Do we blame National Review reporter Thomas Smith? Are the the moral failures of journalist the biggest contributor to the failure of traditional outlets for journalism. OR is it more the result of larger changes in the way information is accessed and processed?

It's easy to blame people we don't like whether they are liberals who have negated the role of civil religion or conservatives who use religion as a blunt object or wackos of whatever abhorrent ideology. In doing so, we fail to ask two of the most important questions imaginable--how am I personally contributing to the problems before us? And what am I going to do to change that? In the end, if we can figure out who's to blame have we succeeded in making real improvement or just shielded ourselves from accusation? Or to put a finer point on it, how will God respond to us if all we do is complain about the people in religious leadership who have let us down? Will God say, "Well done good and faithful servant?" OR will God ask, "Why didn't you do anything to offset their offesnes?"

Let's be clear about something. People are not motivated by religious beliefs to do acts of violence. Acts of violence emerge from our inherent sinfulness. People may use religion to justify their violence but it is not the cause. As for the ministers who have blown it and thus caused the ugliness in religion I say, I think without trying I could name a hundred good, decent, committed, tolerant, well-meaning, balanced ministers who are slogging their way through as best they can. Given time, I think I could find a hundred righteous for every scandal Pitts could name. But despite the overwhelming amount of good to bad, we're all dealing with stuff that's bigger than figuring out who's to blame. All of us are pretty confused about how to move into the future with ministry practices that will relevantly respond to our current setting. I can't speak for all of us but, speaking for myself, the few highly publicized idiots in our business are annoying and ocassionally tragic but largely irrelevant from a larger perspective. Yes, we have to police our own and I think we do as good a job as any industry at confronting serious moral failures. But in terms of the nationwide departure from religious institutions, the impact of scandals that Pitts names are ripples in comparison to the changing cultural tides before us.

Advent Songs and Christmas Carol rejoinder

2008-12-09T06:06:00.000-08:00

Somehow a post I made three years ago is suddenly getting some feedback. A couple of people wrote to tell me that I was wrong when I suggested that maybe its OK to indulge in Christmas throughout advent. Interesting.

First, I'm not a huge Christmas fan period. I don't have a lot at stake when people start and or stop celebrating Christmas. I'm usually just trying to fight off my seasonal depression.

Second, and more to the point, the last line of my post is what I thought most important. At least it is something I still absolutely affirm. I said, "People are more easily convinced by being invited into an experience we value than they are by being pushed away from experiences we judge as inappropriate." We can object to the commercialism, the premature Christmas singing, the Santa Claus until we're blue in the face. It's not going to change anything. People need something during the shorter days and longer nights. A more helpful response is to find healthy and appropriate ways to engage the season--one that helps to fend off the inevitable sadness that emerges this time of year. Someone tell me the positive, constructive, life-affirming things about December. We've ranted enough about how pathetic this season is.

Primary Care Physicians and Church

2008-12-09T04:49:00.000-08:00

I grew up believing that everyone needed a primary care physician--a family practitioner. As an adult, new "doc in the box" operations began opening up. While my family does have primary care physicians--a doctor I go see usually, pediatrician for my children, and an OB/GYN my wife sees--we have at times gone to the clinic. I wonder if these institutions have relieved non-emergency calls at the emergency room (a good thing) OR if they lulled people away from primary care physicians (not a good thing). I haven't found any research to suggest that fewer people are establishing relationships with primary care physicians so, my analogy doesn't quite have the punch.

However, it used to be the case that people "knew" they needed a relationship with a denomination and a local church in the same way they "knew" they needed a relationship with a primary care physician. Someone needed to hold their record (letter) and keep up with their vital statistics (date of baptism, marriage, rededications). Yet, increasingly people are not convinced of the need for a relationship with a local church. When they need "church" they assume that they can just go down to "church in the box" and get what they need.

The problem is, of course, that while easily accessible worship services abound--particularly in our area--the other thing people need from church like accountability, support, and the call to service do not emerge quickly in church relationships. It takes time.

Adultery and Vice

2008-10-09T16:54:00.000-07:00

Ross Douthat of The Atlantic Monthly has recently discussed an issue that needs to be discussed, "Is Pornography Adultery?" I appreciate his thoughts though I think he unduly focuses on celebrity couples--who cannot really be used as a gauge of what happens in marriages in general--and he glosses over religious input on the subject. But still, I think he does an admirable job of beginning a necessary conversation. Here's my response to him.

Ross,

Thank you for your helpful essay on internet porn and adultery. I come at this as a minister (ordained, seminary-trained, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)) and not as a lawyer. Whenever I conduct premarital counseling, we always have a conversation that reflects your perception that “infidelity” is a “continuum of betrayal rather than an either/or proposition.” That’s helpful language for describing the fact that there are behaviors which one spouse could engage that the other would consider adulterous that do not include intercourse. As best as I can, I try to get each partner to verbalize where that line might be for them. I hesitate to say that your gloss of Jesus’s instruction is actually more relevant than you indicate. Jesus’s teaching about looking at a woman lustfully as equal to adultery shouldn’t be understood as an either/or proposition either. Rather, it is a hyperbole meant to reveal just what you indicate--that adultery starts somewhere along the path that leads to the betrayed bedroom. Somewhere Martin Luther is supposed to have said, “You can’t keep the birds from flying over head but you can keep them from making a nest out of your hair.”

I sense that the distinction between porn and adultery is what in the relationship is being betrayed. With pornography, what is violated is a person’s self-worth as reflected in the eyes of their partner. People long for that sense that they are beautiful in the eyes of others. At least part of the commitment in marriage is that even as you age you will still adore one another’s bodies. Indulging pornographic material conveys the message that she’s not physically adequate for him, or he’s not physically adequate for her.

Excessive pornography use also begins to impact a relationship in much the same way any addiction can. It distracts from the relationship, consumes shared resources, causes emotional barriers, etc.

In an affair, what’s violated is not merely one’s sense of self as physically adequate but also the intimacy or trust in marriage. The secrets that are meant to be shared between wife and husband exclusively get shared with others. Where the use of pornography sends the message that one’s spouse is not physically satisfying, an affair conveys the message that one’s spouse is not emotionally or spiritually satisfying. It’s not just about beauty but trustworthiness.

When I’ve had the pre-marital counseling conversations, the tendency has been to go down one road or another. They either talk about how indulging fantasies can be a betrayal or how cultivating intimacy in relationships outside the marriage can be a betrayal. I’ve had a couple provide a detailed delineation of what sort of vice consumption is unacceptable--porn, strip clubs, lap dances, etc. But by far, most of the conversations have dealt in terms of intimacy and not vice—what sorts of interactions with other people are sufficiently deep enough to be warning flags of unfaithfulness. Admittedly, context may unduly influence the answers I’ve received. It’s easier to talk to a minister about having intimate conversations with others than it is to talk about dirty pictures and body parts. But still, it’s my sense that at least part of the distinction between excessive porn use and infidelity has to do with what aspect of the marriage relationship has been betrayed. In both situations, something is being betrayed. But, I think it's instructive to know exactly what is being betrayed. What promises are broken in either case.

Andy Mangum
Pastor, First Christian Church
Arlington, Texas

Raising Teenagers

2008-09-08T05:24:00.000-07:00

When I was a youth minister, I noticed a sort of melancholy that seemed to cling to the parents of teenagers. I never really understood it but, now I think I do. As a parent, you put up with the poop, the pee, the whining, the tears, the snot. You teach a child to use the toilet, tie the shoe laces, count, identify colors, read and do their homework. And about the time they develop a personality you want to be around, they want nothing to do with you.

John McCain

2008-09-04T20:14:00.001-07:00

John McCain’s speech this evening before the Republican National Convention was a blessed change from the rhetoric of the previous evening and previous convention. He was vulnerable in ways that I didn’t imagine any politician could be. He was sincere. And at least for the evening, he was convincing.

Oops.

2008-08-28T18:03:00.001-07:00

A former student from DBU posted a comment a couple of days ago. I accidentally misplaced it--durn. Just in case Kevin visits this blog again--hey, how's it going, thanks for the note.

Teaching Speech

2008-08-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

I will be teaching speech this Fall on Saturday mornings at Brookhaven College. I haven't taught in six years. So, I'm trying to rethink what it was that I did and what I will do now. Brookhaven will be the sixth place where I have been on adjunct faculty. The first place was WT when I worked there as a graduate student. Then I taught for a year at Amarillo College. In seminary I taught at Weatherford College and Tarrant County College. Then after seminary I taught at Dallas Baptist University. Of those school, WT offered the most support in part because I was a graduate student and the professor in charge of the basic courses was and is a good mentor. I enjoyed Amarillo College where they offered some collegiality but not much in terms of formal support. At Weatherford College, I really appreciated the oversight of the department head, Anita Tate. She was good to work for. Tarrant County was OK. I appreciated the students. The departmental secretary was a great guy. But, the department seemed to revolve around the theater and those of us who just taught speech communication were somewhat irrelevant.

Thus far, Brookhaven seems to be a really good institution. They seem to work hard at (1) including the adjunct faculty as colleagues; (2) communicating regularly; (3) working toward improved teaching. I'm looking forward to it.

Sermon for Sunday, August 10th

2008-08-09T07:27:00.001-07:00

God Amazed Through Gideon

Judges 6-8

August 10, 2008

One of the things I failed to mention when I introduced our seasonal series, “Saddle Up Your Horses” is this: If you’re gonna saddle up your horse, you have to stay in the saddle. Martin Luther is quoted as saying, “The world is like a drunken peasant; if you help him up on one side of the horse, he falls off on the other side.” I’ve never been able to find the quotation in context so I don’t know exactly what Luther meant—and honestly who really knows exactly what Luther meant. But I’ve always taken the quotation to mean that indeed people have difficulty staying in that place of righteousness. There seems to be mutations of almost any virtue that reside on either side of the virtue on something of a continuum. Take the virtue of patience—it’s absence of course is a short temper on one side but its also easy for patience to fall off on the other side and became passive lethargy. The virtue of joy—one side a humorless piety and the other side hedonism. We have all seen the absence of kindness in cruelty, mean-spiritedness, and arrogant rudeness. But there’s a syrupy, artificial kindness that leads to codependence on the other side of the horse. Indeed, we can be like a drunkard on a horse—God gets us upright in the saddle and we quickly fall off on the other side.

Take Gideon for instance. Gideon was a judge in Israel. He came from the tribe of Manasseh which is in the middle of the tribes of Israel—just south of the Sea of Galilee. Chapter six begins with the explanation that the people in Israel—after Deborah and Barak’s victory—had once again fallen into apostasy. They had forsaken God again and now they were being tormented by Midianites. Midianites were a desert people from Northwest Arabia. According to Genesis 25, they too were descendents from Abraham. Nonetheless, they had come against the Israelites, they were ruining their crops and extorting them for money. So the Lord came to Gideon and called him to bring reformation to the people within Israel—tearing down their pagan altars. And then God called Gideon to lead the army that would defeat the Midians.

It took a lot to actually get Gideon in the saddle. In fact, Judges chapter 6 could be considered a less in excuse making. When the Angel of the Lord arrives to call Gideon the first time, Gideon responds with accusation. He says, “If the Lord is with us, why has all thishappened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and put us into the hands of Midian.” Excuse number one—blame God. It’s not my fault. If God wants this done, let God do it. Yes, Gideon, God does intend to deliver the people. But go back and look at those stories again, you’ll see that God always uses people to accomplish God’s plans for deliverance. God’s response to excuse number 1—Judges 6:14, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

OK, excuse #1 didn’t work. If you look in Judges 6:11-13, the dialogue is taking place between Gideon and the Angel. And here Gideon is very bold and cocky. But then in verse 14 it is the Lord himself who arrives to speak. And Gideon changes his tune quickly. He pulls out excuse number 2—the inadequacy excuse. Lord, my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family. And here the Lord reassures him and says, “I will be with you.” And here’s part of the reasoning that God gives a little later in chapter 7. If Gideon were a tried and true military leader whose capabilities could be seen by all then Gideon would receive the praise for the battle rather than God. God wanted to do something through Gideon so bold that the people would have to recognize that God was in it.

Finally, Gideon tries excuse #3. “How do I really know that this is God’s will?” And so there’s the famous fleecing of God episode. He places a fleece on the threshing floor and says to God, “If this is really your will let the fleece be wet and the floor be dry.” And indeed the next morning the fleece is soaking wet and the floor dry as a bone. But then Gideon says—OK, OK, OK, but one more thing. This time let the floor be wet and the ground dry--because it could be that the fleece simply soaked up all the water. But the next day indeed, Gideon receives his sign. Having been exhausted of his excuses, he saddles up and goes to defeat the Midian army.

Think about those excuses for a minute—they are mutations of virtues. “Where is God in this? I’ve heard the promises; I’ve heard the stories.” It’s a sort of mutation of righteousness called righteous indignation. This situation isn’t my fault—why should I do anything about it. The second excuse is a mutation of humility—I can’t, I’m not good enough. The final excuse is a mutation of spirituality—I’m going to delay a little longer until my spirit has fully discerned that I know exactly what God’s will is. Last week at the 5:00 Bible study time, we had a competition about the “best excuses.” We each submitted our best excuse—I’m too old, I’m too young, I’m too tired, I’m too busy. Surely there is someone more qualified. I’m not worthy, I’m too clean to do something like that. I have dirty hands, I have clean hands. We didn’t declare a winner but I think my favorite one was, “Well, the last time I did that, it didn’t work out so well. I encountered sand fleas.”

Here’s the thing about excuses though—they’re just excuses. I’ve never seen God convinced by an excuse. I mean—do you think God listens to us and sometimes says—“Oh really, your dog ate your homework. I didn’t know that—huh—cause you know I made the dog and you know I’m pretty familiar with their dietary habits and I don’t remember putting homework on their menu. And I certainly didn’t see that coming—you know being omniscient and all.” God having designed us and empowered through the gift of the Holy Spirit knows what we are capable of. God also knows our limitations. And that which God demands, God supplies. God grants the strength, wisdom, patience, and virtue necessary to fulfill the call for us. When God says, “Saddle Up Your Horses” we should remember that God made the horse and supplies the saddle.

And in some of the commentaries I read about this passage, that’s the knock against Gideon—that he has all these excuses. But, I don’t think that’s the knock against him—at least not the biggest one. God endures all that—the righteous indignation, the mock humility, the fake piety—because each of those in their own mutated sense are ways of relating to God and the whole point of calling us to saddle up our horses is to bring us into relation with God—that we would travel alongside God. And if God has to convince you that is going to act through you, God will enable you to act through God, and that God will be faithful to complete that good work begun in you, that’s what God will do.

And so Gideon goes into battle. And hopefully you’ll come tonight for the musical so, I don’t want to spoil the plot for you. But, God takes Gideon’s sizable army and weans it down to just three hundred men—not much more than a posse to go up against Midian’s army. The Lord said that He needed a smaller army because with a large Army, Gideon would get a big head and think he accomplished it on his own. But with an army this size, Gideon would have to rely on God every step of the way. And the battle plan is remarkable—here like the battle of Jericho—God wins the battle using the half-time show.

The three hundred men carry torches, clay pots and horns and surround the Midian army at night. At the appointed time, they throw down the clay pots, they raise the torches, they blow the horns and the Midians flee in terror. I’m certain that the crashing pots sounded like lockers closing, the loud noises sounded like voices in cinder block halls, and the dissonant horns sounded like an out of tune marching band, the Midians probably awoke and thought they were back in Jr. High—it would make me flee in terror as well.

But after the battle is won, Gideon falls off the other side of the horse. They come to make him King and Gideon knows the right answer and gives it. No, I don’t want to be your king, The LORD, YHWH is to be our King. Indeed, that is the goal with all work that amazes people—to point people toward God. God asks people from time to time to use the gifts entrusted to them to amaze people. Artistic abilities to create amazing beauty, writing ability to provide insight, an amazing experience of faith to provide testimony, the ability to sing. And with each of those expressions of faith, staying in the center of the saddle means ensuring that people understand the motivating and animating force behind the amazing things we do. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before others that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven.” In XXX of Christian Century, If you look in Judges 6:11-13, the dialogue is taking place between Gideon and the Angel. And here Gideon is very bold and cocky. If you look in Judges 6:11-13, the dialogue is taking place between Gideon and the Angel. And here Gideon is very bold and cocky. VVVVV writes about the “handshake ritual” it’s what occurs out here in the back as people are leaving the sanctuary. In an excellently written essay, he talks about the actual ministry that can be done in those brief seconds. But, he also says, it’s one of those moments when preachers have to watch that they don’t fall off the horse. Sometimes, people help you stay humble. xxxxx He quoted one seminary professor who said, “We have too many preachers who desire to hear parishoners say, ‘what a Great preacher we have’ and not enough who long to hear them say, ‘What a great God we have.’” This tendency doesn’t just apply to preachers. We must be careful that we do not crave too desperately to hear—what a great choir we have, what a great Sunday school class we have, what a great outreach program we have, what a great church we are, what a nice person she is, what a good guy he is. Ultimately the longing is to hear people say, “What a great God we have.” And that’s the words Gideon mouths but, as Mother Mangum would say, “His actions were speaking so loudly I couldn’t hear what he was saying.”

Gideon refused that title of King but then started acting like one. First, he acquired a gold earring from each of those who had been in battle with him. And with the gold he made a monument that took on the characteristics of an idol. As judges 8:27 explains, “All Israel worshiped it and it became a snare to Gideon and his family.” The whole resistance to a king meant that one judge did not appoint his or her successor. When the need arose, God called forth the leader of God’s own choosing. But Gideon tried to convey the power from himself to his son Abimelech. The detail in the storytelling that emphasizes this shift occurs in the presence and absence of the Lord in the story. If you have your Bibles open and can look at the way the word “LORD” is written in a verse like 6:14—its written in all capital letters. When our English translations of the Bible use all a caps for Lord like that it means that the Hebrew word being used there is YHWH or the proper name for God. And throughout chapters 6 and 7, YHWH—The LORD—is an active and dynamic character who communicates directly with Gideon as friends and who causes the Midian army to flee. But as Gideon tips to the other side, The LORD ceases to be an active character in the story. Gideon begins to do what God didn’t want anyone to do—he begins to act like a king, convinced that he has won the battle and that his agenda matters most. The people God has to bolster are not nearly as difficult as the ones who think they can do it all by themselves. The timid, the shy, the ones with low self-esteem recognize they have to rely the need God to put them upright in the saddle. The arrogant, over-confident, people convinced of their own trick riding capabilities generally don’t realize they’re riding sideways in the saddle. They can’t be told that they need God’s help. Be careful my Gideon-like friends when God chooses to amaze others through you. The euphoria can be intoxicating. And the arrogance and pride on the other side of the horse seems so easy to embrace. Stay upright that others may be amazed and say, “What a Great God We Have.”

Pineapple Express

2008-08-07T16:28:00.001-07:00

I just saw Pineapple Express. The movie is violent. It has hugely inappropriate language, sexual content, glamorization of drug use. I'm glad I was seeing it down in Cedar Hill. I thought it was hilarious but wouldn't recommend it to anyone of impressionable age. On second thought, I just wouldn't recommend it anyone who doesn't have a really sick sense of humor.

I think I went because I knew it was a movie I could see as an adult and needed to distance myself a little from the kids and teenagers I've been dealing with this summer. Lovely children really, it's just that you need to distance yourself from them at times.

Response to The Shack #3

2008-08-05T05:15:00.000-07:00

This is my third and final objection to The Shack. As I have said before, I really appreciate the book. I find it helpful and moving. But, being who I am I can't seem to just unequivocally praise a book. So, I decided to get my objections out initially so that I can say what I appreciate in the book without that luggage. In a conversation between Mack and Jesus, Jesus dismisses the value of institutions like the church--or at least the church in the organizational and administrative sense. Admittedly, my objection probably is rooted in the fact that I receive a paycheck from such an institution.

It may or may not be historically accurate to say that the historic Jesus was not about creating an institution. However, he was a Jew and functioned within his contemporary experience of Judaism. It is wrong to construct a picture of the historic Jesus as someone who threw all the organizational and institutional aspects of Judaism out the window. That's frequently how we portray Jesus but it simply isn't accurate. In the December 26, 2006 issue of Christian Century, Jewish scholar (of the New Testament!) wrote about the unfortunate divorce of Jesus from his Jewish background by the church (Amy-Jill Levine, Misusing Jesus: How the Church Divorces Jesus from Judaism, Christian Century, 12/26/2006, pp. 20-25). She points out several moments from the biblical account of Jesus's life that reveal his attention to Jewish practice.

In terms of the institutions created after Jesus's life, the book of Acts shows that after the Ascension of Jesus, the people committed themselves to formal practice of religious community. The development of the Epistles from Pauline to Deutero-Pauline to General Epistles also shows this growing awareness of the Christian life as rooted in institution. The earliest epistles of Paul were addressed to particular churches--in Thessalonica, in Corinth, in Galatia. But the Deutero-Pauline epistles of Ephesians and Colossians reveal a growing sense of connectedness between churches. Finally, with the general epistles (Hebrews-Jude), the epistle form is being used but the letters no longer address particular congregations but at the very least groups of congregations and ultimately the church as a whole. While there's no requirement to believe that the earliest followers got it right, it is nonetheless a misreading of the New Testament witness about normative Christianity to claim that Christians can or should neglect the institution of the church. New Testament Christianity is overwhelmingly concerned with the church as both a mystical community and as an institution. To preach a Christian faith that disdains or denies the importance of the church is to preach against the New Testament witness. This is not to say that you cannot be a Christian unless you go to church. Certainly you can. However, the agency that God has used over two thousand years to bring the message of the gospel to the world has been the church. God could have certainly chosen some other means, but God chose the church.

Having the character say he didn't intend to start an institution feels good to people who have been burned by the church. And God knows the church has burned far too many people--literally and figuratively. It separates Jesus from the failures of the institutions which have developed around his message, life, death, burial and resurrection. And those failures have varied from the ludicrous to the tragic. But for all our failures, God has not chosen to wash away the church in flood but has preserved us through the storm. Such is the grace of God.

Response to the Shack--Part 2

2008-08-04T05:57:00.001-07:00

I want to emphasize that I like The Shack very much. I have been recommending it whenever possible and have started the process within the church of thinking through how we get the book into the hands of people who have otherwise felt pushed aside by God and by God's people. My quandary in all of this has been--How do I name my few problems with the book without tainting the value of the book. So, I've decided to give it a shot in this blog--since no one reads my blog--in the hopes that getting it off my chest I can move in more faithful ways.

My second objection to The Shack is that the book is dismissive of the role Jesus plays as our exemplar. In a conversation with Jesus, Mack asks "You mean that I can't just ask, 'What Would Jesus Do'?" To which Jesus responds, "Good intentions, bad idea. Let me know how it works for you, if that's the way you choose to go. Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy. Being my follower is not trying to 'be like Jesus,' it means for your independence to be killed. I came to give you life, real life, my life. We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do. But, we will never force that union on you. If you want to do your thing, have at it. Time is on our side" (p. 149).

The question, "What Would Jesus Do?" comes--ironically--from a bestselling Christian Novel of the last century, Charles Sheldon's In His Steps. It almost feels like a shot at the last century's equivalent to The Shack. The phrase has been over-commercialized in WWJD Bracelets, T-shirts, coffee mugs, and boxer shorts. But that doesn't invalidate the idea. I'm not exactly sure where to pinpoint the origins of his thought that Jesus was not to be followed as an example. Much of Philippians discusses the importance of being imitators both of Paul and of Christ. In John 13, Jesus washes his disciples feet and clearly points to their role in following his example. 1 Peter 2:21--the origin of Sheldon's book's title--also points to following Christ's example.

There seems to be something of a mysticism in what Young proposes to put in place of a conscious imitation of Christ. We surrender to the presence of God in our lives and in an almost organic way God lives through us. That sort of approach to God works for some people. However, others have faithfully lived Christian lives consciously seeking to live by the example Jesus set. A seminary professor I studied with once said, "People are generally right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny." I think Young is right in what he affirms in the above quotation. There is a mystical connection between God and believer that we can yield ourselves to. I think Young is wrong in what he denies. It is possible to authentically live in relationship with God through Christ by consciously seeking to follow Christ's example.

I tried to address these issues recently in a sermon taken from Philippians. I've posted it here.

Christ's Example Our Imitation

2008-08-04T05:54:00.000-07:00

This sermon is published in the Summer 2008 edition of Biblical Preaching Journal. Though I wrote it, I may very well be violating copyright law publishing it here. However, I refer to it in a later blog and wanted it present.

My apologies to BPJ. thankfully no one reads my blog.

Christ’s Example; Our Imitation

Sermon on Philippians 2:5-11

Interpretive Question: Focus on the myth or model? Scholarly consensus has identified this text as a hymn which predated Paul and which was likely to be familiar to congregation in Philippi. Paul incorporated the hymn into an ethical exhortation. To have the “same mind” (2:5) as Christ is connected to the objective of having the “same mind” (2:2) within the church. On the other hand, the hymn itself does not inherently serve as an ethical example. Rather, it narrates the journey of Christ into the world, through humble service, obedient death on the cross, and exaltation by the work of God to the glory of God. A preacher must decide where to place the emphasis. I emphasize the exemplary role this hymn plays because the letter as a whole emphasizes the relationship between the narrative of Christ and the life of the believer (1:27-30; 3:10-14, 17-21; 4:5).

What is exemplary? As the sermon tries to convey what we are meant to follow changes depending on our context. Following Christ’s example through martyrdom, interior qualities of humility and humble service are just three answers that have been given over time.

I would encourage people to look at Joseph Marchal’s helpful survey in the July 2007 Interpretation. Marchal, Joseph A. "Expecting a Hymn, Encountering an Argument: Introducing the Rhetoric of Philippians and Pauline Interpretation." Interpretation 61.3 (2007): 245-56.

Context

This sermon was preached at First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) on April 20, 2008. It was part of an eight-week sermon series on Philippians. The next sermon in the series was “Christ’s Passion; Our Participation.” Since that sermon focused on Christ’s crucifixion, I did not emphasize that part of the Christ hymn in the sermon.

Sermon

When I was in High School, I thought I might have a future as a poet--I know, I know, most high school kids dream of being rock stars or pro athletes, I imagined being a poet. I wrote a lot of poems then, really bad ones. A poet whose poems I had encountered through The Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Hudgins, came to Hardin-Simmons University and gave a poetry reading. I went to hear Hudgins, purchased a book, and developed an appreciation that lasts to this day. He remains my favorite poet. I got up the nerve to type up some of my best poems (uh-hum) and mailed them to Andrew Hudgins for review. In April of 1989 I got a response. It was not the response I thought I would get. It was blunt and critical but not mean. He said the poetry was “Abstract, self-conscious (plus they often slide off into humor, as if to say ‘Aw shucks, I didn’t really mean what I said’), occasionally clunky, and evasive (because they don’t know how to take on the subject at hand). As a result the poems often hid behind a cloud of words, instead of presenting a clear, graspable situation.” Twenty years later--I am afraid to say--that still describes my writing. However, it was Hudgins’s advice not his critique that surprised me. I grew up at a time when adults were telling young people to express themselves, dare to be different, and be original. Ironically, non-conformity was the norm and alternative music was popular. I truly expected him to say, “Express yourself! Find your own voice! Develop your own style.” Instead, he wrote, “You should read more widely and try to imitate (for the sake of learning, not as a life goal) the poets and poems you admire the most.” Try to imitate the poets and poems you admire most. It was the first time I ever heard that imitation could be the path toward authenticity.

The Philippians also had a poem. Not that bad poem of a teenage boy but the grand poem of the Christian faith. It’s called the “Christ Hymn” in most academic literature. It starts in Philippians 2:6 and stretches to 2:11. It describes Christ’s pre-existence, his humility and obedience as a man, his death on the cross and his exaltation by the hand of God. Most scholars believe that this section of the book of Philippians was an early Christian hymn that predated Paul and that Paul was quoting this bit of poetry. Yet, Paul prefaces it with a perplexing statement—let this mind be in you.

How exactly did Paul imagine we might have the mind of Christ? For Paul, the the mind of Christ was the one mind that could unify the whole church. Paul mean it as a call to for unity. There was apparently an argument between at least Euodia and Syntyche. There were external opponents who threatened to fracture them. And other places in the letter suggest a need for unity. The means for that unity would be found in the example of Christ. If everyone sought to live according to the example Jesus set, they would be like-minded and achieve unity.

Over the years, this notion of following the example of Christ has taken different forms. Church Historian Margaret R. Miles, “Perhaps the most frequently developed traditional metaphor is Christian life as imitation of Christ” (p. 21). The name Christian indeed implies that a person is one who seeks to reflect the character of Christ in his or her own life. But what imitating Christ has meant over the centuries changes depending on time and context.

Three historic examples illustrate the changing nature of following Christ’s example. In the first three centuries of Christianity, when our faith was periodically oppressed by the Roman government the imitation of Christ was often understood as reaching its ultimate fulfillment in being executed—martyred—for the faith. A classic example is seen in one of the earliest Christian texts we have outside the New Testament entitled, The Martyrdom of Polycarp. Polycarp--the 86 year old bishop of Smyrna--was captured by the proconsul’s police squad, brought before a Roman proconsul and compelled to recant his declaration that Jesus is Lord. If he would say, “Caesar is Lord,” he could be saved. In response, Polycarp’s somewhat famous reply was, “For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” (Lightfoot and Harmer, p. 139). So, as the account unfolds, Polycarp was first burned and then stabbed until he died. The writer gave this interpretation of the martyr’s death, “The son of God, we worship, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord. . . . May we also become their partners and fellow disciples!” (p. 142). Imitation of Christ meant experiencing the “obedience unto death even death on the cross.”

Move forward a millennium and a half. Thomas á Kempis wrote one of the most popular devotional books of all time entitled, The Imitation of Christ. For Thomas the imitation of Christ was conforming one’s interior life to Christ’s interior life not an imitation of Christ’s external deeds. And so, the chief virtue in The Imitation of Christ was humility. This required an excruciating and unflinching self-examination, moral purity, and a refusal to judge other but rather to examine one’s self. For the 15^th Century lay movement fed by Kempis’s writing, the imitation of Christ focused on that part of the hymn which speaks to an interior characteristic: “he humbled himself.”

Again, move forward a couple of centuries. In 1896 Charles Sheldon wrote one of the best known books in Western Christianity—In His Steps. In His Steps describes the transformation of the members of a fictitious church—First Church of Raymond—after they commit to living by one simple axiom of imitating Christ. In their efforts to live according to Jesus’ example, they begin working with the poor, they make a sacrificial commitment to face society’s problems head on. While you may not have read the book In His Steps you are surely familiar with its most often repeated phrase and sub-title. In every situation, the exemplary characters would ask: What Would Jesus Do? If only we could require of every wearer of WWJD bracelets, ball caps and boxer shorts to actually read In His Steps. . . . For In His Steps, the imitation of Christ is embodied in this—“he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”

What I hope these three examples reveal is that in each generation of Christianity, sincere Christians have asked the question—what does it mean to imitate Christ’s example. And in each generation of Christianity, sincere Christians have come to different conclusions—righteous martyrdom, pure humility, faithful service to others. And now we ask—what does it mean to imitate Christ in the 21^st Century?

One thing that needs to be said in this day and age is that the question cannot be answered for everyone at the same time. The answer needs to be different on the South side of Chicago vis-a-vis the middle of the DFW Metroplex. It’s going to look and feel different when you standing in the shadow of a bombed out city compared to standing in the shadow of the Cowboy’s new stadium. The North American answers will different than the South American answers. Our setting defines both our needs and the growing edge of our discipleship.

We have to take our context as a predominantly middle-class, pre-dominantly white congregation seriously. I suspect that if we asked the question in almost one of our Sunday School classes you’d get answers fairly consistent answers about service to others and attitudes of humility. The kind of answers we inherited from the times that gave us In His Steps and the Imitation of Christ. We would concur that external service and internal humility are the characteristics we’re meant to emulate. That’s all good. Yet, we can affirm the virtues of volunteering and canned food drives, clean living and self-discipline without confronting the idolatry of the self that dominates our culture.

The hymn’s opening words say, “Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.” It is this part of the Christ hymn that matters most, I believe, in our 21^st Century Christian context. This is not imply that we had a divine pre-existence in the manner that Christ did. We are not God. But, we habitually make gods out of our culture, our experiences and indeed ourselves. Driving along the highways that bi-sect our city we witness sign after sign of a “me-first” generation—that has been with us so long it’s not rightly called a generation anymore. Though gas prices continue to climb—reminding us of the our infinite dependence on finite resources—the highways are still packed by SUV’s many of which were purchased not because the owners needed that much power but merely because we wanted that much space. On a larger scale, we can be guilty of making a god out of our economy. We America got started we needed work-ethic that enabled people to be self-sustaining. What developed is our form of capitalism which offers blessings and mobility. But it can lead to overly competitive cruelty—a dog eat dog ethic. Globally, we’re left alone on the hill after the Cold War; we are the “last remaining super-power.” We often idolatrously assume that our might makes us always right. The pulpit is not the place to be overly definitive about these issues. They need to be discussed in a context that allows give and take. And besides, I am not a gifted enough annalist of society and economy to provide specific assessments—my poetry still struggles to locate “graspable situations.” Yet, I am convicted to ask the question: What is the implication of following the one who did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited given our status in the world, our consumption of resources, and business practices? Expanding our vision and following Christ in the here and now means learning to imitate a part of the song we have for too long overlooked.

We are able to do this if we commit ourselves to renewing the question—what does it meant to imitate Christ today? That Christians ahead of us have consistently asked this question is more important than any of the answers they have given. We have inherited both the answers and the question itself. Might I suggest that rather than holding the answers at arms length and embracing the question itself, too often we have relinquished the question and deified the answers. Christ-the example we are called to imitate--did not regard equality with God God’s self as something to be held tightly. For the needs of humanity, he emptied himself, entered at a particular time and place and was humbly obedient to God. Why then should we be unwilling to relax our grip on the inferior gods we have generated?

Works Cited

Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, J. R. Harmer, and Michael William Holmes. The Apostolic Fathers. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1989.

Miles, Margaret Ruth. Practicing Christianity : Critical Perspectives for an Embodied Spirituality. New York: Crossroad, 1988.

Sheldon, Charles Monroe. In His Steps. Uhrichsville: Barbour and Company, 1985.

Thomas á Kempis. The Imitation of Christ. Trans. George Stanhope. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1886.

My Response to The Shack--Part 1

2008-07-28T06:37:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, my wife picked up William P. Young's novel The Shack at the Christian bookstore. She read it over a long stay in Canyon and raved about it. So, I read it. I sense some real hope in this book. I'm not sure what reaches people who have stepped away from religion but it seems like this book might. I don't know. Here's my question: How do I affirm what I perceive to be good about this book and still critique what I view as problematic?

The difficulty that I have seen in the local church is that people don't catch the nuance of saying--here are the things I like and here are the things I'd disagree with. They either want a clear "amen" or an unequivocal "no way." "Yes, but" doesn't do it for most people.

Here's my attempt to say, "Here are some of the things I really liked and here are some things I have a problem with. " I'll start with a concern:

This is really more of a caveat than a critique. In the book, the members of the Trinity are characters--Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer are characters. These characters talk. Hence the author has written a book in which God speaks. I have a certain resistance to works of art in which God speaks. We have a couple of hymns like that. In "Here I am Lord," the verses are ostensibly "God's" call--I the Lord of sea and sky, I have heard my people cry . . . . Depending on how you read, "I was there to hear your borning cry" the voice could be that of God. I've always taken it to be the church rather than God but that's just how I sing th song. The problem here is that of how close it comes to idolatry. Crafting a voice and words for God is very similar to crafting an image and the problems are the same in either situation--we form an image of God that we control. Clearly, that's not Young's purpose in this book. Indeed, he unsettles some metaphoric images for God that we have turned into idols. But still, my knee-jerk suspicions are raised anytime any book but the Bible portends to give voice to the words of God.

Thing I'd Like to Say But Can't #2

2008-07-26T18:27:00.000-07:00

There are certain moments in pastoral ministry that you have to consciously suppress the comments that pass through your mind. As Disciples we prize each one's right (responsibility) to think for themselves which means that we must be tolerant of some of the boneheaded things people blurt out--I at least do so mindful of the fact that people have tolerated (and continue to tolerate) the boneheaded things that come out of my mouth. That being said, "Thing I'd like to say but can't #2" is:

"How do I tell you that your theology is totally whack without making you feel worthless in the eyes of God?"

Desmond Tutu--God Has a Dream

2008-07-24T09:51:00.000-07:00

Tutu, Desmond, and Douglas Abrams. God Has a Dream : A Vision of Hope for Our Time. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

Themes and Images from the Book

Transfiguration

Transfiguration Image
Transfiguration, or transmuting, is a central image for Tutu. He explains the centrality of this image on pages 2-3. He tells the story of sitting in the priory garden after having looked at a "Calvary" ("a large wooden cross without corpus, but with protruding nails and a crown of thorns"). He began to realize that the God he served could transfiguration even the ugliness of the cross into a symbol of redemption.

Transfiguration Principle
"The principle of transfiguration says nothing, no on and no situation is, 'untransfigurable,' that the whole of creation, nature, waits expectantly for its transfiguration, when it will be released from its bondage and share in the glorious liberty of the children of God, when it will not be just dry inert matter but will be translucent with divine glory" (p. 3).

Our role in Transfiguration
"If God is transfiguring the world, you may ask, why does He need our help? The answer is quite simple: we are the agents of transformation that God uses to transfigure His world" (p. 15).

Transfiguration Question--What transfigurations do you most long for?

Justice Frees Everyone--Tutu expresses a common theme in social justice discussions: that injustice diminishes the oppressor as much as it diminishes the oppressed--both loose their humanity. Justice creates freedom, restoration and wholeness for everyone. `Freedom grounded in God"Our freedom does not come from any human being--our freedom comes from God." (p. 14)

Hope--Tutu frequently relates the importance of transfigured attitudes and transfiguration of the mind. Hope is not a pie-in-the-sky in the by-and-by. Hope is rooted in a knowledge of what God has done, what God can do and what God intends to do.

Miracles--Taking note of miracles: "Just because there is more to be done, we should not forget the miracles that have taken place in our lifetime" (p. 8).

Hope in the Face of Evil--"If we are capable of such acts [acts of cruelty and brutality], how can there be any hope for us, how can we have faith in goodness? There very well may be times when God has regretted creating us, but I am convinced that there are many more times that God feels vindicated by our kindness, our magnanimity, our nobility of spirit. I have also seen incredible forgiveness and compassion, like the man who after being beaten and spending more than a hundred days in solitary confinement said to me we must not become bitter, or the American couple who established a foundation in South Africa to help the children of a black township where their daughter had been brutally murdered" (p. 12)

Anthropology of Hope--"It is only because we believe that people should be good that we despair when they are not" (p. 13).

Hope in this world--"The religion I believe in is not what Marx castigated as the opiate of the people. A church that tries to pacify us, telling us not to concentrate on the things of this world but of the other, the next world, needs to be treated with withering scorn and contempt as being not only wholly irrelevant but actually blasphemous. It deals with pie in the sky when you die--and I am not interested, nobody is interested, in postmortem pies. People around the world want their pies here and now" p. 65.

Longing for more--On page 117, Tutu tells a story of students who rebelled against the educational system that consigned them to an education that focused only on their labor capabilities. "There is something incredible in us that knows we are made for more, something in us that thirsts for knowledge and for discovering the truth. even these students who had never knowing it, in the depths of their soul yearned for it."

God's Presence in Suffering

"A story from the Holocaust makes a similar point. A Nazi guard was taunting his Jewish prisoner, who had been given the filthiest job, cleaning the toilets. The guard was standing above him looking down at him and said: 'Where is your God now?' The prisoner replied: 'Right here with me in the muck.' And the tremendous thing that has come to me more and more is this recognition of God as Emmanuel, God with us, who does not give good advice from the sidelines. The God who is there with us in the muck.

God does not take our suffering away but he bears it with us and strengthens us to bear it" (p. 17).

Embitter or ennoble--"It seems to be part and parcel of the human condition, but suffering can either embitter or ennoble" (p. 71). Love is what determines whether suffering embitters or ennobles. Tutu names several things we can do to create this: we can learn to celebrate other's giftedness, act first and allow forgiveness to follow (behavioralist approach), seen yourself as a potential for blessing (p. 79), and asking for forgiveness (81).

Partnership--Another image that Tutu uses continually through the book (beginning at page 19) is that of partnership. We are God's partners in the work God does in the world.
Partnership with God is Partnership with one another

"Only together, hand in hand, as God's family and not as one another's enemy, can we ever hope to end the vicious cycle of revenge and retribution. This is the only hope for us and for making God's dream a reality. Because God truly only has us" (p. 58).

Andy's thought: Joining in God's partnership requires some of us to radically transform our understanding of faith. I observe that many of us live with an understanding of faith as a transfer of goods: We meet God's expectations (either of morality/purity or service or both) and in response God rewards us with the promises of the Gospel: heaven, happiness, freedom from guilty and shame. We cannot disdain this notion as it is the reason many of us came to faith to begin with. It is an embedded theology to which we return and it is not without biblical warrant. At the same time, it is one that gets in the way in the partnership with God. As ultimately we keep asking what children often ask when doing 'chores'--haven't I done enough yet? As we mature in our faith, we need to release our grip on the faith as exchange of good model and embrace more and more faith as love of God. When love of God becomes our modus operandi we engage in partnership with God for the sheer joy of being with God and not with the hopes of any reward.

Genuflecting one another--"We should really genuflect before one another. Buddhist are more correct, since they bow profoundly as they greet one another, saying the God in me acknowledges the God in you." (p. 63). How do we find a way to convey this?

Partnership with God--"Our partnership with God comes from the fact that we are made in God's image. Each and every human being is created in this divine image. That is an incredible, a staggering assertion about human beings. It might seem to be an innocuous religious truth, until you say it in a situation of injustice and oppression and exploitation. When I was rector of a small parish in Soweto, I would tell and old lady whose white employer called her 'Annie' because here name was too difficult: 'Mama, as you walk the dust streets of Soweto and they ask you who you are, you can say, 'I am God's partner, God's representative, God's viceroy--that's who I am--because I am created in God's image'" (p. 62)

Family--Tutu uses the image of family to describe the relationship we have with one another throughout the world. Two characteristics of family are: (1) our ability to disagree and remain in unity and love; (2) a willingness to share.

Ubuntu--"A person with ubuntu is welcoming, hospitable, warm and generous, willing to share. Such people are open and available to others, willing to be vulnerable, affirming of others, do not feel threatened that others are able and good, for they have a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that they belong in a greater whole. They know that they are diminished when others are humiliated, diminished when others are oppressed, diminished when others are treated as if they were less than they are. The quality of ubuntu gives people resilience, enabling them to survive and emerge still human despite all efforts to dehumanize them" (p. 26).

Importance of Self Love—

Tutu concludes chapter 2 and devotes chapter 3 to the line of reasoning that understanding God's love for me enables me to love myself. The ability to love myself enables me to love others. Michael Card has a line from a song in which he sings, "He cannot love more and will not love less."

Accepting Frailty--"The West has paid a high price for its disdain for human frailty. I have seen a great deal of poverty and squalor in my time, having traveled to a few places on the globe. I have seen people, rags of humanity, scavenging on rubbish dumps in Calcutta. And yet I was never more shocked by poverty as when I saw someone searching for food in an overflowing dustbin in New York" (p. 37).

Disdain for weakness heart of Nazism--Tutu gives a lengthy quotation on pp. 38-39 from "Our Contempt for Weakness" by Harald Ofstad. The argument of the book is that that the primary difference between Nazis and the rest of us is the lengths to which they were willing to go to enact their ideology. This ideology regarded weakness as needing to be destroyed.

Loving the Enemy--"But if you are to be true partners with God in the transfiguration of his world and help bring this triumph of love over hatred, of good over evil, you must begin by understanding that as much as God love you, God equally loves your enemies." (p. 41).

Love of enemies does not excuse evil deeds--"True reconciliation is based on forgiveness, and forgiveness is based on true confession, and confession is based on penitence, on contrition, on sorrow for what you have done" (p. 53).

Not turning a blind eye
"Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones is not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the pain, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end dealing with the real situation helps to bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing." (p. 56)
From Tim's Sermon

From Tim Schomp's sermon July 27, 2008 at First Christian Church, Big Sandy, Texas.--Three years ago this month, four young men - one a teacher, another an athlete, the third a father of a small child with another on the way, and the fourth a teenager - left their homes in the suburbs and traveled to the city where they blew themselves up in London's subway system and on a tourist bus - killing more than 50 people - wounding hundreds of others.

This past week, an English Imam - a Muslim cleric - looking back on that horrible event, asked a reasonable question, "Why would four children of God do something like this to other children of God?" Then he asked another question, how can injured children ever forgive their attackers?

Among the seriously injured were Katie and Emily Benton - two young tourists from Tennessee. In an interview - immediately after the incident - Katie, from her hospital bed, said she was praying for the victims - and - for the bombers. That second statement surprised me, so I turned up the volume on the truck radio and listened carefully to her reasoning.

Katie and Emily, even in the wake of such a horrible act, can't feel anything but pity for these four young men - faithful people - so mislead they came to believe they would actually accomplish some kind of justice for themselves and their cause by doing such a terrible deed.

Remarkable insight from remarkable young women - violence, even when inspired by a perceived injustice - only begets more violence, more injustice and ultimately - hopelessness.

Katie and Emily - you and I - folks of all stripes - live in a world with a prevailing mindset: justice is usually achieved by inflicting greater injury on the perpetrator- lasting peace can be won by waging temporary wars - happiness is attained through public insult, litigation or vigilante justice - communities are strengthened by ostracizing and demonizing those who scare us - the best way to get back what you've lost is by getting even with the one you believe took it from you.

Guilt--"So often when people hear about the suffering in our world, they feel guilty, but rarely does guilt actually motivate action like empathy or compassion. Guilt paralyzes and causes us to deny and avoid what is making us feel guilty. The goal is to replace our guilt with generosity. We all have a natural desire to help and to care, and we simply need to allow ourselves to give from our love without self-reproach. We each must do what we can. This is all God asks of us

Peace--"Peace is not a goal to be reached but a way of life to be lived" (p. 120).

Sermon, Sunday, July 20, 2008

2008-07-24T09:49:00.000-07:00

Wheat and Weeds
Matthew 13:24-30
July 20, 2008

In 1975, Elton Trueblood wrote a small book entitled The Humor of Christ. In that little work, he observed that people don’t often get the humor Jesus used. We are, of course, separated from Christ by time, culture and language. And that gets in the way. But, we also fail to grasp the humor because many of us don’t have an image of Jesus as someone who could tell a joke. If we did, we might discover that Jesus had a sense of humor which we often mask by our lack of one. Jesus describes the sowing of yet more seed in yet another field. This time all the good seed fell in good soil, and things were going along quite nicely until, “While everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away. The wheat sprouted, the weeds sprouted.”

Two things that might surprise us in this story about the wheat and the weeds are the stupidity of the enemy and the response of the farmer. And the enemy really is stupid. “What kind of moron goes through all this trouble?” First of all, you don’t really ask “how did these weeds get here?” They’re weeds after all they just show up. So, the enemy does something that was going to happen anyway. Second, what kind of dweeb takes time to gather weed seed for the simple purpose of using it in a surprise weed attack? I have harvested all the ryegrass seed and with it I shall rule the world! . . no . . . Finally, he goes out into the field and sows them in the dark. I don’t know about you but, I don’t dislike anyone badly enough to loose a night’s sleep over it. Much less do unnecessary yard work. These weeds do not kill the wheat. They just coexist there creating an extra step in the harvesting process where the wheat and weeds are separated out. What kind of enemy is this? In truth, aggressors in the ancient world like enemies today often attack their enemies’ food supplies. Cut off an entities basic means of support and you will conqueror them. If that was the enemies intent, then he would have burned the field or uprooted the plants.

What is being portrayed here in Jesus parable is the contrast between two systems, two approaches to life and indeed two kingdoms—on the one hand you have a system that creates evil, destruction, noxious behaviors and on the other you have the kingdom of God that produces life. Jesus told the parable to draw a contrast between these two systems, these two kingdoms. He also told the parable as a way of encouraging the disciples then as today that the kingdom which sows destruction will not ultimately prevail. Our faith is in the God who will one day collect all that produces evil and throw it into the fire. Notice that the destruction is not simply for evildoers but primarily for all causes of sin. We are not inextricably bound to assume that at the end of time, countless numbers of human souls will be sent to hell. Rather, what is destroyed in the end are the causes of sin and those entities which are dedicated to perpetuation of evil. A few comments though about the nature of the enemy.

The enemy is more about sowing confusion than in destroying crops. I have heard about “tares” all my life. I always associated tares with what we used to call “stickers.” Some weeds produce grass burs, little thorny balls that will lodge in your foot if you walk across them barefooted. They will also get tangled up in your shoelaces, if your not careful. And, they will get into your dogs feet and fur. That’s what I always thought of when I thought of tares. Painful, useless, obviously evil weeds. It gave me a great deal of pleasure to think that one day God would create a world free of stickers. But that’s not the type of weed Jesus’s audience probably imagined. What they probably imagined was Persian ryegrass or darnel—a weed the looks a lot like wheat.

The most effective tool for evil is not the obvious evils but the evil that can mimic the appearance of good. In ways that mimic the patterns of the kingdom of God. God desires that people would know wholeness and peace. Yet, people are often deceived, sometimes by well-intentioned people who are themselves deceived, into quick-fixes to their problems. The weapons people accrue to protect themselves become deadly instruments at the wrong time and in the wrong place. We see this in the religious setting all the time. Prosperity gospel preachers baptize get-rich-quick schemes profiting on the vulnerability and credulity of the poor. People desperate to relieve physical illness or pain often succumb to the temptations of pseudo-scientific plans. And in an election year, we need to be reminded that the governments we have created—have always promised to be the savior of all humanity. This year, millions of first-time voters will cast their votes for one candidate or another naively believing that indeed the person for whom they vote will truly live up to all the hype. We must remember that the Kingdom God isn’t that which looks like it will produce grain sufficient to sustain life. It truly is that which has the capacity to sustain life. Those who search for the kingdom of God will find an uncountable number of fakes to sift through and burn away.

But that’s not the only surprise that comes our way. The other surprise is the farmer’s response. How should we—those who work in the field of the Lord—respond to the presence of the weeds. “Shouldn’t we pull up the weeds? They are ugly, nasty, unproductive. They use resources that ought to be used for the plants that will produce crops. They have thorns that hurt us while we work in the garden. Look at them. They’re poser plants. They look like wheat but they’re not. There’s nothing in a weed you can use. Shouldn’t we just pull them up one at a time.” “No” said the master. “No, just tend to the plants I’ve planted. Let the weeds alone. Make sure the wheat grows.”

It would be false to assume that with all the evils in the world, the God revealed in Christ expects passive acquiescence. No we are called as people of God to speak out for justice. Whenever the weeds restrict the poor from receiving adequate resources, whenever the weeds deceive people into perpetuating cycles of prejudice and bigotry, whenever the weeds harm little children or other vulnerable people, we as people must respond. This is not a call to passivity. But rather, it is teaches us about the primary way to respond to weeds. Our primary response to the weeds is not to invest a lot of energy in uprooting them. When the church has assumed the role of uprooting evil, it has unleashed its own versions of evil onto the world. We have tried from time to time. Think about the McCarthy hearings, the witch hunts and witch trials, riots between Protestants and Catholics, the Spanish Inquisition, whenever the workers in the field have not heeded the instructions to let the weeds be, we have far too often dislodged the growing wheat and created our own sort of evil.

The response to those weeds suggested in this text is hopefulness and helpfulness. The hopefulness comes in the recognition that a day will come when God will gather all that which produces evil and will incinerate them. We will not have weeds in heaven. The helpfulness is in our emphasis on finding creative responses of good works to do in response to the evil that we see. Nurture the good seeds into life, make sure there’s wheat to be harvested when the growing season is done. Here’s a simple truth, people are generally better at offering help than they are at preventing hurt. Christ’s primary strategy for responding to evil is for Christ’s followers to amass enough good in the world so that the balance tips in favor of the good. You see this reflected in various teachings in the New Testament—Jesus said, “Let your light shine so shine before others that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven.” Don’t go hunting for the source of darkness. Darkness doesn’t have a source. It’s just emerges from the absence of light. So, you respond to darkness by producing light—producing good works. Paul said it this way, “Do not be overcome with evil; but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). Don’t let the weeds overgrow the garden, outgrow the weeds with wheat.

What weeds cause you the greatest stress and anxiety? I would point at just one possibilities as a way of thinking about how we cultivate wheat in response to weeds. One of the weeds that will cause people the greatest distress are weeds that hurt children. Children are vulnerable. They are vulnerable in an economic climate that makes it difficult for their parents to supply all the necessary resources for them and for their education. They are vulnerable in school where despite the most committed educators there still too few adults for kids to interact with and engage. They are vulnerable to cruelty—from peers, from adult pathologies, and from the challenges of life. How can you respond to those weeds? Make yourself available to children—we have a partnership with Blanton elementary. You could get your volunteer screen form filled out so that when we participate with them in evening activities you can also. The Mission and Outreach section has already started to publish the list of necessary items for the fall. I caught one of our key leaders last week on his cell phone. He and his wife—whose children are out of school—were at Walmart buying school supplies. In a few weeks, we’ll bring those collected supplies and we’ll bless them and we’ll send them on to our partners. What are we saying when we do this? Look at how good we are, look at how wonderful we are? NO! We’re acknowledging that this is the portion of God’s field that has been entrusted to us and we’re going to make sure the wheat outweighs the weeds.

Maybe one of the weeds that bothers you most is the weed or corporate greed. Corporate greed isn’t such a bad problem if its just about the rich getting richer but, it is the consequence of the poor getting poorer that troubles most Christians. The acts of embezzlement that caused the deterioration of corporate pension funds in the late nineties were most distressing because people who had done exactly what we ask good, hard-working people to do, were suddenly left vulnerable in the face of the future. We understand that we live in a tumultuous economic climate. Yet, we also sense that there are some people who can take the same resources and because of things they understand that the rest of us do not, they can convert those resources into sustainable livelihoods. Perhaps that’s a gift you have. Maybe one way for you to share wheat is by helping to organize financial management workshops or small group ministry. We have support groups for all kinds of purposes in this world—addictions, grief recovery, parenting children with special needs. Some of you have learned how to sow wheat in a financial field. Maybe you could organize a support group for people dealing with financial stress—part sounding board, part survival skills. You ask, “who would come to a support group like that?” . . . me.

That’s just two suggestions there are more. And friends, each time I gather with you I am reminded that you do so much to sow wheat. You are generous with your time, your talents and your money. So if you hear nothing else hear this—that is precisely the way the master intends for you to respond to the weeds of evil that seem to prop up everywhere. You are neither hopeless nor helpless in the face of the weeds. You have been given a promise and given a mission. Thanks be to God.

A random thought

2008-07-19T10:39:00.000-07:00

Anti-bacterial soap says that it kills 99.9% of disease carrying bacteria. Anybody else really freaked out by the killer germs that survive?

Things I wish I could say #1

2008-07-16T18:13:00.001-07:00

There are certain things that as a pastor cross my mind. Things that I wish I could say but know somehow wouldn't go as well in actual conversation as they do in my own mind. We've dealt with a higher than usual number of people walking in asking for assistance. What I wanted to say in the midst of one of the more recent conversations was, "I realize you have problems; I'm just not convinced that I have solutions."

Sermon Drop In

2008-07-13T12:09:00.000-07:00

If you were to outline Sunday's sermon the outline would be: Introduction--12 most effective preachers, what about the twelve most effective listeners; the role of the sermon-listener is not to listen to the preacher but to listen for the word of God which the preacher may or may not assist the listener in doing. I. Sometimes the word of God does come through the sermon but this rarely happens A. It happened once in my life--8th grade; B. Churches that assume it happens regularly are vulnerable to manipulation and coercion.
II. Sometimes the sermon comes alongside the word of God. A. If the word of God is the rain; preachers are like weathercasters. They predict the weather, can tell where they think the rain is; but they cannot generate it nor can they force you to experience it; B. Scripture mediates the word of God so, going back to the analogy, study of scripture is standing in the rain. C. Personal and congregational transformation requires study of scripture.
III. Sometimes God's word comes against the sermon.

On Sunday morning, dropped in the following thoughts around point IIC.
I was a 25 year old youth ministry when the Baylor study was published in 1996. That's why I didn't make the list. I feel confident that if the study were done today, now that I have preached for over a decade . . . I still wouldn't make the list. But someone who did make the list is a Disciples of Christ preacher named Fred Craddock. If you've never heard Fred preach, you should. Fred is known as a winsome, folksy preacher who tells stories. In the homiletics world (that's the study of preaching) he's known as the catalyst of the New Homiletic movement. But, I think when it's all said and done, Fred's legacy will not be that he told folksy stories. I do not believe that it will be that he launched the New Homiletics. I do not really believe either of those was Fred's really big idea. Fred's really big ideas was this: to get congregations to read scripture; to get Christians to read scripture. His really big idea is that we learn to read scripture using the best tools we have available to us--tools of social and historical research, tools of language study, tools of literary analysis. But he has also encouraged us to read expected to hear a word from God--the word of God. In the end, that's Fred Craddock's legacy and why he really is not merely a model preacher for those of us who preach but a model participant in the church's mission of listening for God's Word.

Listening to a Sermon--additional commentary 1

2008-07-11T05:32:00.001-07:00

Sunday's upcoming sermon is entitled, "How to Listen to a Sermon." The basic thesis of the sermon is that sermons are not products of a preacher. They are products of a congregation. The best sermons come when the whole congregation participates in listening for God to speak to us. When we use the phrase "Word of God" many people I know, including myself, think of scripture. The Bible is the Word of God. I have been more recently persuaded to say that the Bible becomes the Word of God. It has the potential of being revelatory but that potential is not realized unless the reader enters into the text with openness.

Alexander Campbell, one of the earliest leaders for the Disciples of Christ, said in his Christian System, that there is a "Understanding Distance." That is, around any source of sound or voice there is a circumference outside of which the voice cannot be understood intelligbly and within which the voice can be understood. Campbell said that the center of the understanding distance with regard to scripture is God. The circumference is humility.

I would contend that if the preacher is the only one striving to come within the understanding distance, then preaching isn't occuring. The preacher is engaged in an individualistic spiritual discipline, helpful for him perhaps, but the Word of God is not being proclaimed. Similarly, and this probably happens with greater frequency, a preacher can avoid coming within the understanding distance. Members of the congregation can actually be there without their preacher and receive the Word of God despite the preachers effort to draw all the attention to himself. But in the best case scenario, the preacher and congregation hold one another mutually accountable for entering into the understanding distance and listening for God to speak.

Sermon, Sunday, July 13, 2008

2008-07-10T09:01:00.000-07:00

“How to Listen to a Sermon”
Matthew 13:1-9; Isaiah 55:1-3; 8-13
July 13, 2008

In 1996, a Baylor University study identified the 12 most effective preachers according to 341 professors, religious editors and preachers. The list received national attention when Newsweek reported the results. I have heard every one of the 12 preachers--not all of them in person but some over media. I would have to agree, these are truly effective preachers. But I wonder how instructive the list is. What do we really accomplish in naming effective preachers? The announcement from Baylor said that the study reflects their commitment to "preparing ministry students." So, naming effective preachers was meant to be exemplary for those who preach. However, effective communication depends as much on the receiver of communication as it does on the sender of communication. Put any one of these twelve preachers alone in a sanctuary reciting their sermon, and I’d say they are practicing not preaching. Sermons are delivered in the context of a worshipping community of faith. At our highest density, there are 34 sermons listeners to every preacher—there are probably more. But since there are overwhelmingly more sermon-listeners than sermon preachers, it makes more sense to name the 12 most effective sermon listeners and offer their habits as examples for the rest of us. Since it’s not really logical to do that, we might content ourselves in considering “How to Listen to a Sermon.”

The primary task of a sermon listener is to listen for the Word of God. I want to exchange meanings with you. If I were to ask “what is the sermon” the definition I think a number of us would give is that the sermon is a message delivered by a preacher during worship. A sermon entitled, “How to Listen to a Sermon” would be arrogant and self-serving if the preacher preaching it believed that people needed to listen to him or her. I’d like to replace that definition of sermon with this one: the sermon is the time dedicated in worship for the whole church to listen for the word of God. What then is the preacher doing? If it is the time dedicated in striving to hear God speak, why doesn’t the congregation just sit in silent anticipation of a word to come from God? Good question—there are actually some traditions that do just that--no preacher just a congregation sitting silently waiting for a word from God. That’s good and we ought to respect that tradition. We have a lot to learn from Quakers. But we’re not like that because we believe that the preacher can assist the congregation in hearing God’s word. We’re also a tradition that has fiercely resisted the notion that the preacher is going to get it exactly right on any consistent basis. We have said it is each believer’s responsibility to strive after God’s word. The best sermon listeners are not the people who can leave the sanctuary and recite the sermon word for word. That would be freakish actually. The most effective sermon listeners are those who can listen past the words that are spoken to the Word that is spoken which belongs not to the preacher but to God.

Sometimes, though very rarely, the word of God comes directly through the sermon. This has happened one time in my life. You’ve probably heard me say that Ephesians 2:10 got me through the 8th grade alive. Let me tell you the story behind that comment. In eighth grade, my church was in transition. We had been dealing with a serious moral failure at church. I and my peers wrestled with our disappointment and sense of betrayal. On top of that, my seventh grade year was filled with the normal amount of adolescent trauma—nothing serious but nothing really pleasant either. Our church had a Jr. High retreat—it was cold. I had to go late. I didn’t really want to be there. I had a bad attitude. And the speaker began talking about Ephesians 2:10. “We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, to do good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do.” And the preacher said that the word for workmanship in Greek is poema—from which we get the word poem. Then he said, “You are God’s poem, God’s work of art, God’s masterpiece.” And when he said, “You are God’s masterpiece” he looked directly at me. I sensed in that moment that he was speaking God’s word directly for me. But that is the only time where I felt that the sermon was the word of God for me directly—and I may have been the only one in the room who felt that. It doesn’t happen often. A church who believes that their preacher regularly and directly speaks God’s word is bound to fall victim to manipulation, coercion and the sort of evil that has dogged the church since our earliest days.

The best we can normally hope for is that the word of God will come alongside the sermon--Or more truthfully that the sermon comes alongside the word of God. The sermon can assist the congregation in hearing God speak but does not convey the message directly. The analogy that I’ve been playing with this week is that of rain. It’s a risky analogy right now because we have friends and family members living in flooded areas where more rain is not welcomed. But in this part of the world, rain is almost always welcomed. In fact, in this part of the world, the rain could rain out a visit from the President, Billy Graham and Nolan Ryan all on the same day and people around here would shrug it off saying, “Well we needed the rain.” Jesus used the analogy of the word of God as seeds that must fall on good soil. In my analogy, I want to suggest that the word of God is the rain—actually that’s not my analogy its Isaiah’s “As the rain and snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth . . . so is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not return to me empty.” (Isaiah 55:10).

Let’s imagine that our souls need to be rained on by the word of God in order to survive. Now, let me suggest that the preacher’s role in this little analogy is that of the weathercaster. The weathercaster comes on and says, “To the best of my knowledge, using the tools I have available to me, here’s where I think the rain is.” The weathercaster doesn’t generate the weather any more than the preacher generates the word of God. And the weathercaster can’t cause the rain to fall on you any more than the preacher can cause the word of God to land in your life. If your response is to sit there and passively listen to the weather report you will not get rained on. Not even if the weathercaster tells you that there’s rain right over your house. Unless you make the minimum effort to get up off the pew (I mean couch) and go out into rain, you will be protected from the word of God (I mean rain) by the structure you’ve built around you.

Let’s stick with this analogy a little longer. Let’s say that you recognize that your soul desperately needs the rain/word of God. And the weathercaster/preacher says, “I believe the word of God/rain is there.” What do you do? You get in your car, turn on the radio to the weathercaster and start moving in the direction he said the rain would be. And something happens, you begin to watch the horizon and you look at where the clouds are and you say, “You know, the weathercaster said there was going to be rain over here but, I think the rain may be over there.” And so you make a few turns and you go to that place where you sense the rain might be and you discover that you were right. That’s the discernment that takes place when we participate together in seeking God’s word rather than assuming that the preacher is either always right or hardly every right. The preacher is a member of the community of faith neither privileged with the complete sense of God’s word nor completely incapable of assisting the congregation in finding it. But, it takes a congregation working as a congregation—people taking the risk to move toward the rain--to receive the word of God.

Every now and then people say to me, “I’m sorry but my mind wandered during your sermon.” I want to say, “it’s not my sermon it’s our sermon. But more to the point, where did your mind wander?” Because it’s possible that your mind wanders because you’re having a Walter Mitty moment and just daydreaming about what you could have been and would have been. If that’s where your mind wanders, then—fine—consider yourself chastised. But, I believe in God’s Spirit and believe that your mind could wander to that place where God’s can actually pour out rain on you. Maybe your mind wanders to a need that you read about in the newspaper or saw on TV and your wondering why the preacher doesn’t talk about our response to that need. Maybe that’s not the failure of the preacher but the success of the God’s spirit revealing to you the call that God has on your life. Maybe your mind wanders to a relationship that has been ruptured and needs to be repaired. Maybe your mind wanders to a decision that you need to submit to God’s guidance. Maybe your mind wanders because as you gaze at the horizon you see that the rain you are meant to receive is actually falling somewhere else. I’m like anyone else. I love people to say that they liked the sermon when the sermon is done. But what really excites me are those rare moments when people come to me and say, “Andy, I know this isn’t what you said but what the message made me think of was . . . .” When I hear that, I get the feeling that the word of God might be falling on good soil and the rain may be watering the earth and producing the food of life.

But the analogy begins to break down doesn’t it. How does one get into the car of the soul and drive toward the rain. What can we do to put ourselves in the position to hear God’s word? It begins, I believe by making a decision, about how God communicates to us. Both of our texts speak about “God’s Word”--God’s word as a water, God’s word as a bag a seeds that fall into different contexts. Those are metaphors for the content of God’s revelation to us. But what does that mean in our lived experience? Some say that God communicates through creation—through nature. I agree. Some say that God communicates through relationships—particularly the relationships we have in church. I think that’s important also. But, our faith as a church consistently says that God most fully communicated to us through God’s Son—Jesus Christ. His incarnation, teachings, actions, death, burial, resurrection, commissioning of the church and ascension are the fullest disclosure of God we have. It is the disclosure we claim as Christians. Further, we believe that God revealed God’s self to us in the covenant relationship God had with Israel. The principal witness we have to these acts of revelation is scripture—which we sometimes refer to as the Word of God. I do not believe that scripture is so much the word of God as it becomes the word of God whenever we allow it to be reflected and absorbed in our lives. Mark Powell said it best, I think, when he said, “There is something almost blasphemous about calling a book that lies unopened on a coffee table, ‘the Word of God.’ According to scripture itself, God’s Word is an active, dynamic force that never returns void but accomplishes that for which it is sent (Isa. 55:11). The Word of God cleanses, heals, creates, judges, and saves but it does not sit on coffee tables. A better formulation than saying, The Bible is the Word of God, would be to say, The Bible becomes the Word of God in those who receive it” (What is Narrative Criticism, p. 98).

Sermons then ought to consist of scripture interpretation. It’s what makes this sermon ironic because typically a sermon examines a particular text and I’ve not said much about the texts we’ve chosen this morning. If the sermon is the time for the church as a congregation to listen for God’s word then the whole congregation ought to be involved in the interpretation of scripture. I encourage you therefore to examine the texts that serve as the basis for the sermon. You can attend adult Bible study on Sunday nights where generally we study the sermon reading for the next week. You can do that at home whenever you get your newsletter and see the text that has been identified. Generally speaking, the second reading on any given Sunday is our focus text. At minimum, you can come into the sanctuary and before the service begins you can read and reflect on the text. By actively engaging our own study and reflection on scripture we travel past the beaten road, pull the weeds, and deepen the soil so that God’s word can land and receive water, take root and give life.

Sometimes the word of God comes directly through the sermon. But that doesn’t happen often and I would warn you against ever believing that any preacher ever delivers God’s Word directly on any consistent basis. Sometimes, hopefully this occurs with greater frequency, the sermon comes alongside the Word of God and is an aid in the congregation’s appropriation of God’s word. But finally, and this must be said--Sometimes the word of God comes against the sermon. Sometimes what the preacher is saying is so antithetical to what God desires us to appropriate that the word of God actually negates what the preacher says. This is not to say that we get to deny the holiness, godliness of every sermon that we disagree with. But every sermon gets something wrong and some sermons get everything wrong. In those moments keep in mind that the most effective sermon listeners are not those who critique the sermon or criticize the preacher but those who listen for God. Listen, therefore, for what God might want to communicate to us in the time we allocate to sermon. It feels like rain.

Lot's of Rumble; Little Rain

2008-06-19T05:18:00.001-07:00

Growing up in West Texas the one thing I somehow absorbed was a deep love of rain. It doesn't rain often in Abilene. When it does rain, it's needed. Even though I never lived on a farm, the agrarian culture surrounding me gave me that much. Out in that part of the world, people will let rain ruin a picnic, parade or even an outdoor wedding with one simple expression, "Well, we needed the rain." Rather than being nervous or scared or full of dread whenever we hear the thunder, people from West Texas anticipate the blessing of rain.

Occasionally, though we'd hear the thunder but rather than the earth soaking pounding rain that we expected we would get a simple trickle. Lot's of rumble; little rain.

Some sermons are like that. The preacher has lots of thunder and lighting. I'm not just talking about the pulpit pounding variety. Most preachers have techniques they try to use to maintain people's interest--more or less effectively (usually less). Their thunder might be humor or sentimentality or poetry or personal detail or cute stories about the preacher's children. Nothing wrong with that if what follows thunder is actually nourishing rain. The thunder needs to be a harbinger of rain otherwise it's just noise.

I find that listeners sometimes confuse the thunder for the rain. The fixate on the humor or the delivery or the personal details the preacher threw in as more than an aside. I would counsel listeners to discard the thunder and embrace the rain.

2008-06-17T05:16:00.000-07:00

In 1996, Baylor university revealed the results of a study that assessed the attitudes of 341 seminary professors and religious editors as to who they believe to be the most effective preachers. Later that same year, Newsweek reported the results. When many of these most effective preachers get introduced they are falsely introduced as being named by Newsweek as one of the 12 greatest living preachers. They study was clear--most effective. I have heard every one of the 12 preachers--not all of them in person but some over media. I would have to agree, these are truly effective preachers. But I wonder how instructive the list is. What do we really accomplish in naming effective preachers.
The announcement from Baylor University said that the study reflects their commitment to "preparing ministry students." So, naming effective preachers is meant to be exemplary for those who preach.
Nearly any communication scholar will tell you that effective communication depends as much on the receiver of communication as it does on the sender of communication. Somewhere I have heard that the most common average worship attendance is 35. We can extrapolate, therefore, that there's at best 1 preacher for every 34 sermon-listeners. It would make sense, therefore, to create the list of the 12 most effective sermon listeners and offer their habits as examples for the rest of us.

Sermon for June 15

2008-06-13T16:11:00.000-07:00

“Your Sins Are Forgiven”
Matthew 9:1-8
June 15, 2008

Sometimes certain biblical texts raise more questions than we can effectively answer in one setting. I will name some of these questions in relation to Matthew 9:1-8 not because I intend to answer them but just to show that I’m not ignorant of their presence—and to give you something to think about should the question I’m concerned with doesn’t interest you. Notice two things in the first two verses. Jesus got off a boat. He had been on the other side of the Sea of Galilee and there delivered a man plagued by a legion of demons. He returned to his own land, to the people who knew him best. Some men brought to him another man who could not move. The man was lying on a mat. Jesus saw their faith and said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” Jesus saw their faith. Typically, we try to personalize faith. We like to talk about people whose personal faith in Jesus Christ brings about their own personal healing. Yet here Matthew tells us the faith of this group of people caused Jesus to take note of them. Second, Jesus said to him—“Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” Typically, we say that a person must confess their sins before sins can be forgiven. Yet, Jesus preemptively says, “Your sins are forgiven.” Additionally, Jesus said this before the crucifixion which generally we say is necessary for forgiveness.

As we look at Matthew 9:1-8, one of the unavoidably difficult aspects of the text is the seeming connection between the man's physical paralysis and his sin. The implication is that his sin caused his paralysis. It is one thing to say that our sin can create physical problems. Indeed, all manner of physical diseases, addictions, and manifestations come as the result of our sin. Globally, we are witnessing an explosion of problems related to our systemic sin of poor stewardship—global warming. Those who drink excessively can develop a disease of alcoholism. Most of us could accept the concept that sins--like all actions--have natural consequences and some sins will manifest themselves in natural, negative physical problems. What many of us, myself included, would resist is the idea that that negative physical consequences come as judgment upon us because of our sin. We would want to reject the notion that all physical ailments emerge from sin.

However, several texts in the New Testament suggest just this. In Acts 5:1-16, Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead because of dishonest dealings with the church. In 1 Corinthians 11:30, Paul indicts sinful practices around the Lord’s table—which probably meant unjust distribution—for the weaknesses and diseases many were experiencing in Corinth. I would contend that these and other examples would have to be understood independently before we could make a complete assessment of the whole. In this particular context, the healing is offered as evidence that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins.

Jesus asks a question, “Which is easier to forgive sins or tell this man get up and walk?” In the New Jerome Biblical Commentary on this passage, Viviano writes “This is a confusing questions. It is easier to say ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ since there is no visible control; it is harder to do since only God can do it. It harder to say ‘Rise and walk,’ because your words can be checked for their effectiveness by the result or lack of result” (p. 649). The point that Matthew seeks to make is that Jesus can heal the spirit but in order to provide tangible evidence of that authority, Jesus heals the body.

I’m fond of the word juxtaposition. It means to put things next to each other for the sake of comparison. The juxtaposition of physical healing and forgiveness of sins raises this difficult question for us. But having seen that they really are separate what does their juxtaposition suggest to us. Indeed many people have spirits paralyzed by the effects of sin. Sin can cause the paralysis of guilt. Guilt is the prolonged feeling that what you have done is unforgivable. Guilt causes some people to hang their head and refuse the love that is offered them. Guilt causes some people to look for the sin in others that they could elevate themselves by tearing down others. Paralysis means that a part of your body isn’t working the way it was designed to work. Paralyzed limbs loose both feeling and movement. Guilt is the paralysis of the spirit. You’re spirit is designed to feel joy. And when guilt overcomes people, they loose the sensation of Joy. You’re spirit is designed to move in grace. And when guilt remains, spirits loose their ability to move in the grace that God has given us. Sin creates a paralysis of the Spirit.

In my vocabulary guilt has to be distinguished from conviction or an awareness of sinfulness. In the normal pattern of the Christian life, a person sins and through the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives they recognize that sin. Talking about sin in our culture is tricky. Inevitably we have people who hear the word—sinner—and they know, “Oh, I know they’re talking about me. I’m such a miserable sinner.” They dissolve into this puddle of self-pity. Other people respond with defiance. “I’m not a sinner. Who you calling a sinner?” The fact that confronts us is this—all of us have sinned. All of us are sinners. I could try to run through the checklist of sins until I found one you’re guilty of but what would be the point. The Gospel message takes as a forgone conclusion that we are people who have sin and need the redemption of Jesus Christ. People who wallow in the self-pity created by that assumption and the people who defiantly refuse to acknowledge their sin both do the same thing—they both deny the grace of God and the authority of Christ to forgive our sins.

I don’t know what you believe about Satan. But I believe this—guilty feelings are tools Satan uses to keep you from living the life God intends for you. If you feel guilty you will withhold that word of grace you’re meant to extend to another. If you feel guilty you will edit yourself out of serving others because you’ll say, “I’m just not worthy.” The Bible declares in various ways, you’re sins are forgiven. If you haven’t committed 1 John 1:9 to memory, you should. “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” God longs for you to know forgiveness.

Jesus after making this beautiful declaration—your sins are forgiven—said to the paralytic man “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. If we continue with our juxtaposition this suggests to us that whenever we become aware of our own forgiveness. How do we do that? Christian theology tells us that there are simple realities that must be acknowledged and lived out. So, the reality of forgiveness of sins must simply be lived out. Souls who embrace their forgiveness get up and walk. They walk with thanksgiving and joy. They walk with self-awareness. The sensation of grace returns to the extremities of their spirits. And they grant forgiveness to others. Wait a minute? You say. Isn’t it blasphemy for us to claim to grant forgiveness. Is it?

There’s a final bothersome question in this text. Notice in verse 8 what Matthew says, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to human beings. That’s not just the NRSV being politically correct. The word there is indeed plural—men, people. Just as their faith received Jesus’s notice; so their authority is to forgive sins. Matthew teaches that the church community is the agent of forgiveness on this earth. After Peter’s confession of faith, Jesus confirms that he is the foundation of the church and he entrusts to this church the keys of the kingdom that what the church binds on earth is bound in haven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. Later in chapter 18, Jesus reminds the church that they have a roles in bringing people to repentance and an awareness.

If a church would let me assign readings, one of the assigned readings I would require is Brennan Manning’s The Ragamuffin Gospel. It is an extended reflection on the forgiveness of sins. If find that people who have been Disciples all their lives are frequently unimpressed with Manning’s book. Traditionally Disciples do a better job at not making people feel guilty—we get so few things right, we need to celebrate the ones we do get right. Brennan Manning tells a story in The Ragamuffin Gospel about a woman who had apparently made headlines because she was receiving messages directly from Jesus. Because she was Catholic, the Catholic bishop decided he needed to investigate. And so he contacted the woman and said to her, “The next time Jesus speaks to you I want you to ask him to tell you what I confessed the last time I went to confession.” A few days passed and the woman called the Bishop. “Bishop,” she said, “You need to come over here. I have something to tell you.” The Bishop made his way to the woman. “Did Jesus speak to you?” he asked. “Yes,” she said. “Did you ask the question I instructed you to ask?” “Yes.” “Well, what did he say.” “Bishop, when I asked Jesus about the sins you confessed these were his exact words . . . ‘I don’t remember.” First Christian Church Arlington, we have the blessed and joyful responsibility of helping others come to the awareness that their sins are forgiven and that they can take up their spiritual mats and walk.

Sermon Podcast

2008-02-11T12:19:00.000-08:00

We are attempting to podcast and test driving a couple of sites. Take some time and check out the podcast and let us know what you think.

Switchpod feed
My Podcast Feed

Lord's Prayer Part 1

2007-11-01T07:41:00.001-07:00

This week I begin a sermon series on the Lord’s Prayer. Most treatments of the Lord’s Prayer take the Lord’s Prayer one line at a time and analyze its content. We have been aided brilliantly by such approaches. However, I would like to take a different approach. I would like to take the approach of looking at the prayer as a whole each week but asking a different question of the prayer. The four questions I ask are:

Who prays the Lord’s Prayer?
Who hears the Lord’s Prayer?
Who receives the blessing of the Lord’s Prayer?
What is the aim of the Lord’s Prayer?

The first two questions are not really answered with the immediate responses—we do and God. Rather, I’m thinking about the images expressed or implied in the prayer.

This analysis relies heavily on an understanding of metaphor. All theological language about God is metaphoric. When we describe using God we generally do so in relation to ourselves. To call God “Father” for instance, implies that we are God’s children. Technical language isn’t always that helpful in trying to understand things. But, in this case it might be.

In a metaphor, we use one entity to describe an unlike entity. Metaphor scholars will use different terms for these two parts. I tend toward describe that which is being described as the “object” and that which is being used to describe it as the “image.” In the metaphoric beginning of the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father,” “God” is the object and “father” is the image.

Technical term #1—polysemy or polysemous (yes, my MS Word is telling me these words aren’t words. “Poly” and “multi” as prefixes mean “many.” “Semy” is a reference to meaning (think semantics). A word has polysemy or is polysemous whenever it conveys multiple meanings. If I use the word “jazz” think of all the different meanings that come into play. It evokes sounds—swing rhythm, brass, piano, bass and drums. It evokes sights—lights, flair. It even evokes a kinesthetic response—tapping toes, bouncing torso, snapping fingers. You could tell someone to “jazz it up” and be talking about the way something sounds, looks or feels. The image in a metaphor has polysemy. It carries with it a lot of different meanings, feelings, and thoughts. It’s an image’s polysemy that makes it powerful.

Technical term #2—multivalence or polyvalence (oh, good, a word MS Word recognizes). Polyvalence is the other side of polysemy. I tend to use the word multivalence instead of polyvalence just to keep my mind straight on the terms. Multivalence means that an image can point to more than one aspect of an object. In the interaction of the object and image that occurs in metaphor some of the meanings carried by an image do not apply to the object (cf. philosopher of language Max Black). If I call a particularly sloppy person a “chicken” (agreed, not a nice thing to call someone), I’m probably not referring to that persons ability to yield eggs. This characteristic of the image is “suppressed” (Max Black’s term) in the making of the metaphor. But in the interaction of image and object, we do not suppress all but one aspect of the image’s polysemy. The power of a metaphor is that we attribute multiple characteristics of the image to the object.

Some metaphors have become so common to us that we do fix one meaning to them. When we do this we call it “flattening” the metaphor. For example, Biblical Scholar Joachim Jermias famously argued that “Father” in the Lord’s Prayer actually stood in place of “Abba” an Aramaic term that is roughly equivalent to “Daddy.” This interpretation has been picked up by many in the decades following. The metaphor “Father” has been “flattened” to refer to an intimacy between Jesus and God and through Jesus’s teaching between us and God.

A Catholic New Testament scholar Robert Karris in a helpful book entitled Prayer and the New Testament, repeatedly reminds readers not to “flatten” the images of the Lord’s Prayer. He surveys the literature and identifies at least four possible exegetical interpretations for father—intimacy, redemption, authority, and refuge. Scholars will argue for one interpretation over another. Karris however suggests that spiritual formation need not be so precise. It’s possible, perhaps even likely, that Jesus intended to evoke multiple meanings—multivalence—when he chose the images he did in the Lord’s Prayer.

So, my process in answering the first two questions has been to take the images evoked in the Lord’s prayer, reflect upon their polysemy (multiple meanings) and seek to discern the appropriate direction in my own theological reflection and prayer—multivalence.

Preaching Guides

2006-03-21T14:19:00.000-08:00

I have a few mantras that guide my preaching. I'm still relatively new at preaching so they don't really qualify as "rules." There aren't 10 of them so I won't call them "10 Commandments." They are just the things I say to myself often enough to be guides.

1. Preach the text in front of you.
2. Preach to the people in front of you.
3. In the absence of any really inspiration, use the sermon to give a lecture on the biblical text in front of you (it's the most faithful alternative to preaching). NOTE: I've been preaching a lot of #3 sermons lately.
4. If you can't be profound, be short.

Matthew 1:18-19

2005-12-20T20:17:00.000-08:00

Joseph was a righteous man–What made Joseph righteous? It was certainly not self-righteousness. He was not a strict adherent to the law. The legal codes for his day called for him to public disgrace Mary and make an example. This humiliation would deter future indiscretions by other women. The legal code called for Mary’s execution. Deuteronomy 22 explains that if a man discovers that his wife is not a virgin, "She shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house." According to Deuteronomy the righteous thing for Joseph to do at that moment would have been to fulfill that command. But the righteousness Matthew has in mind differs from the righteousness proposed in Deuteronomy. It involved compassion over punishment; humanity over legalism; and trust over retribution.

Advent Songs vs. Christmas Carols

2005-12-14T07:06:00.000-08:00

In one of his columns, Dennis Bratcher asks the question, "Can We Sing Christmas Carols During Advent?" http://www.cresourcei.org/carols.html. From time to time, we will encounter those people who feel they know the "true meaning" of a particular practice or season or tradition and they set out to correct what everyone else has obviously gotten wrong. Bratcher takes contention with the way most people observe Advent.

Bratcher observes that Advent is a time of preparation for Christmas and not a celebration of Christmas itself. When people make such arguments--and I'm as guilty of this as anyone--they often simultaneously claim superior knowledge and reveal their igonorance.

Error #1. He begins by lamenting that "As the service of worship began [on the first Sunday of Advent], the first song we sang was 'Joy to the World,' a Christmas Song! I tried to sing it, and celebrate the birth of Jesus the Christ. But it wasn't quite right." He goes on to describe how his worship experience was hollowed by the jump to a celebration of Christmas without the proper advent preparation. The problem is that "Joy to the World" was not written as a Christmas song. Isaac Watts, the father of English Hymnody, began his hymn writing career working on the development of a Psalter--songs based on the Psalms. The words to Joy to the World are his version of Psalm 98:4, 9. It really should be limited to Christmas.

Error #2. Bratcher writes "Advent is the season of preparation for Christmas, not the celebration of it. It is included with Christmas in the same way that Lent is included with Easter. However, Advent is just as different from Christmas as is Lent from Easter." While it's true that both Advent and Lent are seasons of preparation, the historical development is quite different. Robert Webber explains in Services of the Christian Year in the Complete Library of Christian Worship that Advent developed in 6th Century and has always had a certain tension. In Rome, it was a festive season as people emphasized the birth of Christ while in the missionary areas of Western Europe Advent emphasized the second coming of Christ and was a penitential season of preparation for Christian Baptism. Advent has never been one thing.

Bratcher's argument is not completely without merit. Christians do have a necessity for a time of penitenial preparation. There is much beauty in the rhythms of the Christian year. A reflective, preparatory advent provides a helpful antidote to the gluttony and commercialism of the season. Like Bratcher I wish we observed an Advent vis-a-vis Lent. However, I have been trying to interpret Advent for church members for over a decade now and can say that I haven't had much luck convincing people that what they are doing is wrong and that if they would do it my way they'd be right. I think with regard to liturgical seasons we should remember that they are means to and end and not ends in themselves. We achieve more if we leave the discussion of the right and wrong way to celebrate advent--since its really not a moral issue--and begin discussing what we find good, helpful, and healing in advent. People are more easily convinced by being invited into an experience we value than they are by being pushed away from experiences we judge as inappropriate.

John 1:1-18--Part 1

2005-12-13T07:11:00.000-08:00

Charles L. Campbell in an article in Interpretation (49, no. 4, October 1995, pp. 394), writes, "Christmas Day is not a time for explanations and analysis in the pulpit." He was reflecting on John 1:1-14 and knew, I suspect, that the prologue from John entices preachers to analyze. The prologue to John is a theologically dense statement. It is filled with potent images and turns. It begs the church’s residential theologian to theologize. William Barclay, for example, spends 54 pages of his commentary on John on these 18 verses--virtually 1/5 of the entire space he dedicates to the first 8 chapters of John. But alas Christmas Day is not the day to do that--resist the temptation, stay away from the theology. People who come to church on Christmas day are feeling many things--sleep-deprived, sugar-coated, over-fed, out-spent, under-appreciated, and cloistered in nostalgia. Among the things people are unlikely to want to do on Christmas Day: figure taxes, fold laundry, decipher installation instructions and theological analysis.
Which is why pastors should have blogs--so they can get it out of their system. In this text from John we have several Christological themes woven together in what many people believe to be a beautiful tapestry (I am among those who believe this text is one of the most beautiful in the New Testament).

Here are the strands as I see theme: Jesus as the Word of God, the Incarnation, Jesus’s Pre-existence, Jesus as the Son of the God, Jesus as the Light of the World, Jesus’s role in creation, Jesus as the adoptive catalyst.

Jesus as the Word of God--In the beginning was the Word. Growing up, every time I heard the phrase, "Word of God" or "Word of the Lord" I thought people meant the Bible. Yet, when the Biblical writers used logos they probably were not making self-referential statements about the scripture they were writing. They meant something else. In the Greek text, the word for "Word" is Logos and almost anyone well tell you it’s a loaded word. The writers of the New Testament were influenced by both the Greek meanings for the word and also for the Jewish usage of terms. Here’s where it’s tricky. The New Testament was written by people living in a Hellenistic (Greek/Roman influenced) culture. They spoke and wrote in koine (common) Greek. However, they had a copy of the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament) written in Greek. Called the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX). Many words that might mean one thing from a purely Hellenistic frame of reference (not that there really is anything that’s purely Hellenistic) might mean something else from a Jewish perspective.

Word of God from Jewish perspective. God’s word created the world and brought life. God’s word made covenants with the people whom God chosen through Abraham, delivered through Moses, united in David and re-established through Nehemiah. In the prophetic works, "Word of God" plays an important role. It is the most frequent opening for books of prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. In Hebrew "Word of God" is debar YHWH (more accurately, "Word of the LORD"). It is used 242 in the Old Testament and 225 of these occur in prophetic writing. God’s word is not always a fixed statement which cannot change. God’s word is eternal (Isaiah 40:8). But God’s word is also dynamic. God could change, intensify, cancel God’s word. NOTE: That’s God’s ability not ours. God’s word is expressed as God’s life force at work to shape God’s people.
In a Greek concept, logos refers to logic or rational thought. It expresses the highest form of reasoning. Greek’s tended to separate mind from Body. But in Logos you have the combination of both. We speak our mind but speaking is a physical act as the air which gives us life is used to express our thoughts.

So too, the idea of Christ as the logos of God conveys both the sense that in Christ God continued God’s plan for humanity--begun with creation and also that Jesus represented the mind and will of God in physical form.

Where to Worship Christmas Day

2005-12-07T13:11:00.000-08:00

Several news articles report the choice that some mega-churches have made to cancel Sunday morning services on Christmas Day. The articles report that several prominent mega-church leaders (Fellowship Church in Grapevine being among them) consulted among themselves and determined an acceptable way to communicate their intent to not hold service on Christmas Day.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002668999_christmas07.html
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/13346060.htm
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/13323398.htm

Since I am critical of the churches listed in these articles for other reasons, I found a lot to wag my finger at. I've done that. I have said to friends, "If you don't go to worship on Christmas Day when Christmas is on a Sunday, you don't get to complain about the world taking 'Christ' out of Christmas." I do believe that and stick with it. At the same time, I must own up to the fact that Christmas on Sunday has changed things around here as well. We will not have 8:30 service nor will we have Sunday School. We aren't having our traditional Christmas Eve services. Rather we have moved our normal 7:00 pm service up to 5:00 pm and our 11:00 service up to 8:00. We made these changes for many of the same reasons as the churches who decided not to have services on Christmas Day--worship services are a lot of work and to do several in 24 hours is difficult. Consider this, we prepare two slightly different services every Sunday (8:30 and 10:45 differ slightly). For Christmas Eve we generally prepare two slightly different services as well (the early service and the late service on Christmas Eve generally has different musical selections). When Christmas Eve and Sunday are separated by a few days, these differences are manageable but when they occur in close succession (in less than 24 hours) some streamlining has to take place. In short, when events place Christmas Day on Sunday it is an admitted inconvenience. We've all made some concessions to mitigate those inconveniences though I'm really curious about those who'd go so far as to completely cancel services on Christmas Sunday.

Christmas, of course, is about inconvenience. Calvin used the term accommodation to speak of God translating divine intent into understandable human language. As well, the incarnation points us toward a moment of incredible divine inconvience. The fullness of God came to humanity, being inconvenienced in order to bring salvation. Frances Havergal wrote a hymn I find difficult to sing as it is written as the words of Christ to us but the words aren't in scripture. Despite my misgivings, the second verse seems appropriate here.

"My Father's house of light, My glory circled throne,
I left for earthly night, For wand'rings sad and lone;
I left, I left it all for thee, Hast thou left aught for me?
I left, I left it all for thee, Hast thou left aught for me?"

When I ask how I'm doing being graded on the curve of what everyone else is doing, I am filled with pride (in that negative, arrogant sense of the term). No one at my church has even questioned whether we'd have Church on Christmas Sunday. People in my circle look forward to worshiping on Christmas Sunday. But when my sacrifices to "work on Christmas day" are compared to the one who started, perfected and completed the work of Christmas--the one for whom the day is name--I realize that I have no room to brag, or be judgmental for that matter.

Birthday Cards

2005-12-06T19:35:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was my birthday. I thought I was being clever when I said that "I am now old enough to run for President." I thought the constitutional age limit on President was obscure enough that I wouldn't be admitting my age--young to some, old to others.

I am always amazed when at how many birthday cards I receive on my birthday. I'm not good at remembering birthday cards. I forget just about everyone's birthday. I recently read a quotation by Fredrick Beuchner that when people wish us a happy birthday they are not remembering the date so much as they are expressing their appreciation for the whole meaning of your life to them. I like that--more in relation to Christmas and Jesus than me. I like the idea that at Christmas we aren't simply focusing on the day of Jesus's birth--which wasn't December 25 after all--but we are expressing our appreciation for Christ's entire life.

Peace Reflection

2005-12-01T09:13:00.000-08:00

The New Testament speaks about Peace in at least three different ways. First, there is the internal experience of Peace with God. Paul, in the passage we will look at next week, admonished people to be anxious in nothing but prayerful in every and in so doing find the peace of God which transcends understanding. Jesus said to his disciples in the gospel of John those familiar words, "Do not let your hearts be troubled, believe in God believe also in me. Peace I leave with you, my peace." Earlier this week, Dani Loving-Cartwright our new Regional Minister spoke to a group of clergy. She described the importance of the peace we need to encounter this busy advent season. We reminded us who often become overwhelmingly busy with all the advent plans and productions to be at peace, be still and encounter God. Second, the New Testament describes peace within the congregation. In Mark 9:50, Jesus said, "Have salt within yourselves and be at peace with one another." The book of Acts describes the churches in various locations having peace and being built up (Acts 9:50). Paul wrote to several congregations calling them to avoid divisions. As I look at the 95 places in the New Testament where the word "peace" is used, I conclude that most deal with either the internal peace with God which comes through faith and spiritual growth or peace within the community of faith.
The Bible does not prescribe a comprehensive program for society though it certainly has implications for how we live as citizens of our communities, state, nation and world. Several texts suggest to me that the New Testament prescribes an end to violence within societies influenced by the gospel. In Ephesians, we hear that "Christ is our peace for in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us" (Ephesians 2:14). The writer of Ephesians was describing Jews and Gentiles in that statement. Where the Old Testament prescribed a limited retaliation and restricted people to exacting only an eye for an eye or a life for a life. Jesus challenged this by saying, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek turn the other also." That passage comes from the Sermon on the Mount and is followed by Jesus’s command that we pray for our enemies and do good to those who hate us (Matthew 5:38-48). Finally, we remember that Jesus said clearly in the Beatitudes, "Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."

How does our culture live up to this vision of non-violence? I think we should be humble enough to admit that we don’t. I am distressed by how risky it is to say this. The message of peace with God, an internal cessation of anxiety, finding a little space in this busy season is a message people will welcome. But a message which challenges our culture of violence is liable to step on toes.

In America we have crafted the best trained, best equipped military force the world has ever known. We are the last remaining Superpower and the champions of an arms race cold war that lasted nearly half a century. We have the loosest gun control laws of any nation and the largest saturation of guns within the population–granted many, if not most, are owned by sportsman but a significant portion are owned by those who would use them for violent purpose creating another group who own guns to protect themselves against such violence. Frequently, the movie which makes the most money at the box office in any given week includes graphic scenes of violence. Today’s most popular television show similarly depicts violent acts with stunning spectacularity. This morning we are faced with two very difficult realities. First, that the New Testament is committed to nonviolence. And second, that we are not a non-violent society nor are we likely to become one this morning.

What do we do with these two competing realities? I must confess that I don’t know. I think we must begin by honestly admitting that we have chosen a different way of life than that which is projected in the New Testament. In the 25 chapter of Leviticus, the Israelites were given instructions about the year of Jubilee. Every fiftieth year was to be known as a year of Jubilee. Everyone who had become and indentured servant would be released and allowed to return home. All property which had been sold out of the family would return to the owner of origin. It was a radical vision of society. As far as we know, the Israelites never observed the year of Jubilee. It could be argued that given the detail of instruction found in Leviticus about the year of Jubilee that they had develop a strong set of case laws regarding its practice. And yet, we do not know that they ever actually lived into this vision of an equalized society. And certainly in our modern world neither the Christian nor Jewish cultures which take scripture as their guide and light have ever sought to apply this to our practices of land ownership, contracts, or consumer debt. Let us at least be honest and say that there are things in the Bible we do not obey and are not likely to ever obey.

With this honesty, I think we should begin to seek ways to do that which we can do. Very few of us in this room have any power to influence national foreign policy. And I’m certainly not the person to try to give advice about wars and armed conflict. But what can we do? The World Health Organization estimated that in 2000 1.7 million people lost their life in some form of violence. That’s well over 4,500 people a day. They define violent death as death in armed conflict, homicides, domestic violence and suicides. As a church, we support the Women’s Shelter–a place where women caught in a violent home life can find refuge and support. It is good that we do this and we need to strengthen our efforts for this ministry. But what do we do to help heal the brokenness of abusive husbands, boyfriends, and parents? At what point do we set aside our righteous indignation our punitive retribution and say to them, "Let us find a better way"? What as a church are we doing in response to those considering suicide? How do we support and strengthen ministries for them? What are we doing as a church to work for fewer abortions? I don’t think picketing the Supreme Court helps but teaching abstinence until marriage and family planning does. As I look at the violent hot spots in our world today, I sadly confess my feelings to helplessness yet I am reminded that God has not called us to solve every problem. Christ and Christ alone is the Prince of Peace, we are merely servants within that kingdom and what we can do, we must do knowing that the ultimately peace belongs to God.

Phillips and Kobia

2005-11-29T07:24:00.000-08:00

As part of my sermon preparation this week, I've committed myself to reading one sermon (or essay) each day on the topic of Sunday's sermon. Two days into the process and I'm doing alright. My "low hanging fruit" is J. B. Phillips a British pastor and writer. J. B. Phillips is probably best known for his translation of the New Testament and for a book entitled Your God is Too Small. His little book New Testament Christianity has a chapter on each of the advent themes: hope, peace, joy (mingled in) and love. His essay on Peace deals almost exclusively with a sort of personal, spiritual and psychological peace.

Of Peace he writes, "'Peace with God' is sometimes rather carelessly used in religious circles as though it had only one connotation, as though all the problems of a complex human personality were solved if only a man [sic] would accept the redemptive sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Actually, this is an oversimplification, for although to accept the reconciliation which God has provided in an absolute essential, there are many other factors, especially among the more intelligent, which prevent the soul from being at peace" (p. 80).

In the essay he addresses:
1. The problem of Self-Pleasing (p. 81)
2. The resolving of inner conflicts (p. 82)--Guilt
3. The sharing of life with God (p. 83)
4. Realization of adequate resources (p. 84), "We probably are not adequate for all our ambitious schemes, and only at the cost of enormours nervous energy can we succeed in becoming momentarily what we really are not" (p. 84)
5. Peace as a positive gift (p. 85)
6. Alignment with the Purpose (p. 85), "However painful or difficult or, on the other hand, however inconspicuous or humdrum the life may be, the Christian finds his peace in accepting and playing his part in the the Master Plan. Here again we must ask ourselves, 'Am I doing what God wants me to do?'" (p. 86).

Phillips words are very common to me. They fit nicely within the personalized and therapeutic mind set of the evangelical language. In contrast, I also read Dr. Samuel Kobia's address to the international conference on violence and Christian Spirituality. http://www.overcomingviolence.org/

Dr. Kobia is the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. In his address he discussed the World Council's initiative "Decade to Overcome Violence." He referenced a World Health Organization report on violence and health. I've not found the explicit report he referenced however, one from November 24, 2001 said that "In the year 2000, 1.7 million death in the world were due to violence." Kobia sites here the forms of violence like armed conflict, suicide, homicides and domestic violence. The problem is indeed staggering. But here's my dilemma--what are we supposed to do about it? When he gets to the action stage of the the address, he spoke about prayers and Christian spirituality. I believe in prayer; I believe in spirituality. Yet, surely there is more than we can do.

Here's the question I wrote down Sunday morning, "Can we, in good conscience, speak about peace as an internal spiritual quality and ignore the larger social-global ramifications of our world?" In the end, both Phillips and Kobia though they characterize the problem differently, prescribe the same remedy. What do people committed to peace do beyond refraining from violence? How do we help in the work to make peace?

Sermon for the First Sunday of Advent

2005-11-29T07:19:00.000-08:00

The Hope of Advent
Isaiah 64:1-9
November 27, 2005

Fifty years ago, the British Christian pastor and writer, J. B. Phillips wrote an essay entitled "Ground for Hope." He described a time 50 years prior as a time of "bouncing optimism." I found this phrase curious for as I imagine the 1950's–the time when J. B. Phillips was writing–I would imagine using the same description. The Leave It To Beaver Generation–surely there has never more been a time of bouncing optimism. Yet, as I read, I concluded that things hadn’t changed much from the time Phillips was writing to today. I concluded that Phillips must have overestimated the optimism of days gone by and that nearly every generation struggles with its unique set of anxieties and ills. We haven’t developed more problems in the intervening years just different ones. In the past fifty years, we have traded the enemy of communism for the enemy of terrorism, the threat of nuclear war for the threat of biological attack, the challenge of integration for the face of pluralism. Today we fear the possible breakout of a bird flu pandemic. In 1918-1919 the world witnessed a global flu pandemic that took the lives of between 20 and 40 million people. We watch the news and read the papers and we drown in the overwhelming flood of humanity’s ability to act inhumane and wonder if things have ever been this bad. Yet, every generation faces anxieties this includes the generations that gave to us holy scripture.

Whether we turn to the Bible for guidance or not depends a great deal on our outlook. While I am an advocate for Biblical hope, I recognize that Biblical hope is only one of a series of options. We can choose, as Phillips recognizes, wishful thinking. Wishful thinking sees the problems of today but feels powerless to respond. And so, we believe that some how God will simply whisk our problems away. We may also respond with unrealistic nostalgia–a naive view of the past that pretends we were somehow better, kinder, more Christian at some point in the past and if we could just get back there life would be good. The prevailing option however, in the face of our world’s complex problems seems to be atheistic analysis. By atheistic analysis I do not mean the analysis of atheists. Those who openly admit they do not believe in God and set out to prove that God does not exist do not concern me. I don’t encounter that many of them. What concerns me is what I see far too often–the functional atheism of professing Christians. How often do we set aside our beliefs about God in our discussions of politics, economics, psychology? Many Christians have decided that their faith works for nice pleasant occasions like weddings and funerals, Christmas and Easter traditions, but in the "real world" it’s of little value. When problem come their way it’s best to find the most applicable trend and the best wisdom of the age, than the most appropriate text and the wisdom of the ages.

Why is biblical hope superior to the other responses to the circumstances of the day? Again, J. B. Phillips writes that when we are reading scripture, "We are reading what was written by men at first-hand grips with realities, and it is astonishing and heartening to find how hopeful they are" (p. 47). Biblical hope provides the most constructive response to anxieties because it provides the one that affirms both our human abilities and limitations. Biblical hope points us to what we can do and points us beyond ourselves to the One who can do immeasurably more.

For now well over a hundred years, Biblical scholars have accepted the idea that Isaiah was written by two and perhaps three authors. Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, composed chapters 1-39. Another prophet writing wrote chapters 40-55. A third prophet, or the second prophet in a different setting, wrote chapters 56-66. The three parts of Isaiah have always been edited together. They share common themes and theological outlooks. Nonetheless, the historic circumstances surrounding the author of our focal text are decidedly different from those of the early part of the book. Specifically, chapters 56-66 address those who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity (see Ezra and Nehemiah). They now behold the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and God’s holy temple. The sight of the ruined temple provides the historical context for this prayer (Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-13). The prayer of Isaiah mixes contrition and confession, petition and hope. The contrition and confession comes as the prophet acknowledges how few call upon the name of the Lord or rely on God. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was understood by the prophet to be God’s punishment for sins. The petition and hope is expressed in the prophets desire for a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. It is also in the desire to see vengeance served against God’s enemies–likely those who both destroyed the temple but also those who stand in the way of the temple’s reconstruction.

Isaiah’s prayer is an example of Biblical hope. Biblical Hope holds an honest vision of today’s circumstances along side an expectation that God will act for good. Correspondingly, it involves a commitment to align one’s self with the purposes of God. He prays, "Oh that you would rend open the heavens." The word "apocalypse" literally means to uncover or reveal. We think of it as the end of the world but it is more accurately depicted in the sort of scene Isaiah imagines. Isaiah had heard the stories from his scriptures about God guiding his people to that place with a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night. Isaiah knew how God had made promises to Abraham, commissioned Moses, empowered Joshua, preserved Ruth and ordained David. Isaiah knew if they had any hope at all, God would have to act on their behalf. "From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who works for those who wait for him." (Isaiah 64:4, NRSV).

If we are to emulate Isaiah’s Biblical hope, we also must cultivate an anticipation of a God who acts. Yet, we have a barrier here as the result of our expectations. The scientific world view says that when we encounter any phenomena we seek ways to explain, predict and control. How do we explain what takes place when grass converts sunlight, oxygen and water into cells? How do we explain what takes place when gas prices rise and fall? Once we’ve learned to explain things we learn to predict them. Meteorologists have their careers staked on their ability to predict. They look at trends and based on their understanding of those previous trends, they can suggest what the next day will be like. But our modern world view most wants control. We want to be able to eradicate diseases, persuade clients, sustain markets, and feed the population. Explain, predict, control is a great mantra for many things but it simply doesn’t apply to the activities of God. God’s actions cannot be explained. We do not know why God chooses to act at one point and not at another. Nor can we predict when God would act. I’d love to be able to give you a five day forecast on Sunday mornings. There should be a low tomorrow of mild disconnect from God and a high of scattered blessings. The blessings will begin to blow out of our area by Wednesday leaving us with cold speculation about the existence of God by Thursday. But God’s activities don’t work that way and even if they did, we could never control God. Biblical hope comes with no formulas; it comes with not plans. Since God’s activities do not fit into our world view’s template of explain, predict and control, many choose to relinquish faith.

Biblical hope however, focuses on the way God has acted in the past, on the nature of the promises made in scripture and affirms that such expectations can be placed before God in prayer. Knowing this makes Bible study of such crucial importance. By actually studying scripture we develop a sense of God’s character and a narrative of how God has chosen to act. People often do not turn to the Bible until they get in a bind and need quick answers. In the back of some Gideon’s Bibles, you know, it has a list of possible resources–if lonely read, page 455; if confused read, page 124, etc. But honestly the Bible doesn’t work that way. The wisdom of scripture comes through like the benefits of exercise–slowly at first but if we remain consistent it develops over time. If you have not committed to an intentional plan of Bible study, I hope you will. Isaiah is a great book to study in that regard. Occasionally I encounter people who describe their prayer life to me. A few times, people have said to me, "I don’t pray anymore. I don’t pray because it doesn’t work. I prayed for wealth [or whatever they prayed for] and I didn’t get it." I’ve generally wanted to say in those moments, "What in the biblical story of faith made you believe that God would answer that prayer?" Isaiah rooted his prayer in the activities of God in this past.

Yet, Biblical hope also grounds itself in our need to align ourselves with God’s purposes. It is naive to think that God is here to serve our agenda. The problem with wishful thinking, unrealistic nostalgia and the functional atheism of today is that all of them are assertions of our rebellion. We want things our way and if God wants to fit into that agenda great but if not God can go back to heaven and play with the clouds and angels. Isaiah’s view of God isn’t so passive and fluffy. This God makes mountains shake and throws nations into chaos like burning twigs. This God crafts and molds people but doesn’t ask for our opinions or permission.
Ultimately, biblical faith reminds us that if we have any hope in this world it comes from repentance. Our hope comes from committing ourselves to doing God’s work.
It is in this conscious commitment to God’s plans that we find our response to all that causes us anxiety. Isaiah recognized that repentance was involved here.

The response to terrorism isn’t the war on terrorism but in missions of life. I have a college friend living in Malaysia who wondered if people from this church would be interested in a mission trip to his Island nation. I thought about all of the difficulties and challenges, the fears and anxieties that such a mission trip would create but I am reminded that if we want to experience God we may just have to visit God on the job. Our nation has been rocked this year by such destruction and damage. We cannot simply send our young people on a mission trip and call the work done. I pray that someone today will say we need at least one adult mission trip in 2006 to a location where God is calling us to participate in God’s work: it could be to God Samaritan Outreach Center in Los Fresnos, Texas to work with Filoberto Perrara, it could be Jackson, Mississippi or it could even be to Malaysia but we find our hope by aligning ourselves with God’s work in the world. Isaiah prayed to God, "You meet those who gladly do right." Let’s be those people whom God meets.

Giving Thanks for BookNotes on CSPAN2

2005-11-25T06:27:00.000-08:00

On the weekends, CSPAN2 has various authors speaking about books they have written. I love it though I don't get to watch it all that much for various obvious reasons (no one in my family wants to sit through a lecture on TV). But it is the perfect combination of my natural desire to sit on my butt and watch TV with my professional obligation to be literate. It's a poorly kept secret that I don't really like to read. I have a lot of books and read a good deal because I think ministers have an obligation to be well read. But there are hundreds of activities I enjoy more than sitting down with a book.

So, this morning (the Friday after Thanksgiving) I listened to part of Steven Johnson http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/ talking about his new book, Everything Bad is Good For You. In the book, he argues that today's television and video games are complex and being complex they enable levels of problems solving and decision making that you don't find in other forms of media. The argument by itself is compelling enough as it goes but, I found the question and answer discussion that followed much more interesting. He was speaking at a Barnes and Nobles. In the lecture, he said he believed in literature and was making no argument against literacy. But the first four comments that the audience made were defensive statements about the value of reading. It revealed sense of moral superiority among these readers--who were all over 40 and probably over 50. It was clear--if only to me--that they had so thoroughly rehearsed they scripts which said TV and video games reduces intellectual capacities while reading develops that they simply couldn't comprehend the argument Johnson was making. They revealed, in that, a certain deficit in their own literacy as we was making arguments from well known cognitive psychological works on multiple intelligence.

A second thing that the audience revealed was what I perceive to be part of a generation gap in the way we think. They, being an older audience, had a hierarchical view of intelligence where in there is one path to intelligence (one that involved a good does of reading) and anything that suggested other paths to intelligence seeks to dismiss the value of reading. Again, Johnson repeatedly affirmed the value of reading. His argument was not that gaming and TV represented a superior for of intellectual exploration. He simply wanted to argue that they were indeed getting smarter and not necessarily making people dumber.

The reaction he was getting from the audience is one I've seen before. People who've been thinking for a long time will often trot out arguments from older debates in response to new ideas. They shortcut the listening process required to understand a new idea and set up defenses rather quickly. I have tried at other times to do similar things in pastoral ministry.
(1) I have tried to suggest that the liberal vs. conservative argument is now bankrupt. Despite the fact that many people still talk about it a great deal, what people now classify as "liberal" is hardly cohesive enough to be described with one term. Yes, we still have what people would rightly describe as "liberals" but there are other varieties that are not conservative but are not quite liberal--older versions like Kierkegaardian existentialism (a Christian existentialism as opposed to later non-Christians manifestations) and neo-orthodoxy, and more recently things like narrative and other social constructionists, post-liberal, socially located theologies. I haven't gotten very far in the argument as inevitably it breaks down into old conservative vs. liberal epitaths.

(2) I have tried to suggest that the way to build is church is through Christian education. Whenever we use the word "evangelism" people have a wealth of images from Billy Graham Crusades to cold calling with tracts in hand. Trying to suggest that despite all the images they have, there are still other ways to do evangelism is an uphill battle.

Needless to say, I empathized with Johnson who seemed to be struggling with an audience who wanted to argue with him but hadn't really heard what he said.

Third Sunday of Advent--Philippians 4:4-9

2005-11-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

Third Sunday of Advent, December 11, 2005
Philippians 4:4-9

Rejoice in the Lord Always, Again I say Rejoice. Paul uses the word rejoice or some variation of it, eleven times in the small letter to the Philippian Christians 1:18 (2), 2:17 (1 and derivative 2:18 (1 and diravative) 2:28, 3:1, 4:4 (2) and 4:10. The word by itself simply means to be joyful or to be happy. Yet, Paul does not admonish the Philippians to be happy in general. Rather by looking at the specific ways he uses the word, we can identify four specific characteristics of rejoicing for Paul.

1. Paul’s rejoicing comes in the face of unpleasant circumstances. In 1:18, he says that although there are those who proclaim the gospel out of selfish greed, he rejoice that Christ is proclaimed. In 2:17-18, he acknowledges that he is being "poured out" that is he is being exhausted in the service of the Lord. Joy does not depend on our circumstances but rather depends on choice.

2. Paul’s joy is communal. Repeatedly Paul implores the Philippians to rejoice with him (the meaning of the word sugcharis He has joy from their concern for him (4:10) and he recognizes that they will rejoice having Epaphroditus returned to them (2:28). Joy is made complete within the communal fellowship of the early church.

3. Paul’s joy is contagious. 2:17-18 expresses a reciprocal quality to joy. He rejoices with them and wants them to rejoice with him. Their joy feeds one another.

4. Paul’s joy is theocentric. The word theocentric means centered on God. God is at the center of their Joy. So it is that Paul uses the phrase in the Lord to modify rejoice. If repentance is returning to God’s grace in the face sin; rejoicing is returning to God’s joy in the face of sadness. Or perhaps more accurately from this context, returning to God’s peace in the face of anxiety. God is the source of joy. Joy is not found apart from God but in God.

Let your gentleness be evident to all. Paul is pleading with two persons in the church who seem to be at odds with one another (4:2-3).

The Lord is Near. Does Paul mean that the return of Christ is near (see the preceding discussion) or does he mean that the Lord is presen? Certainly Paul emphasizes both an apocalyptic return of Christ (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3) and also the presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10-11), in Baptism (Galatians 3:26-28) and through God’s on-going work (2:13). Since nothing leading up to this point has suggested the nearness of Christ’s return, it is best to think of the nearness of the Lord in this sense as a reassurance that Christ is present with the church.

Do not be anxious about anything. The Philippian Christians may well have been anxious about several matters. (1) They were concerned about their friend Epaphroditus who had apparently gone to Paul with a collection from the Philippian church to support him while he was in prison and/or house arrest. He had become ill--which the Philippians had almost surely heard--and almost died. (2) They were concerned about Paul’s plight (4:10-120). The primary reason for Paul writing--it appears--was to thank the church for their concern and to reassure them of his well-being and contentment in every circumstance. (3) They were concerned about the demands it seemed certain Judaizers were trying to persaude them to meet (chapter 3). It appears from this portion of the letter that a group of Christian leaders who sought to adhere to a version of Jewish righteousness that emphasized purity laws (eating kosher and circumcision) had sought to persuade the Philippians to follow suit. This was also the issue in Galatians. Paul takes some time to refute these leaders in the middle part of the letter.

But in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests to God. The response to the following forms of anxiety is a consistent prayer life filled with praise (prayer), requests (petition) and thanksgiving. And the peace of God which transcends all understanding will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Peace of God should be understood as peace with God. Paul did not have here in mind the Greek or Roman concept of a cessation of war but thought much more of the Jewish concept of shalom. Keep in mind that the context (4:2-3) speaks of an end to a conflict within the church. Peace of God relates also to peace with sisters and brothers. As James D. G. Dunn writes, "As the most fundamental of all human relationships, a positively interactive relationship with God is the basis of all other fruitful relationships. Without it human community cannot fully flourish" (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 387). Paul recognizes that there is something mystical and not entirely explainable in the peace of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworth--think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from em, or seen in me--put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. Paul’s concluding admonition consists of pleoxia or the compilation of a string of ideas. This is seen frequently in Paul’s "vice catalogs" (Romans 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10-11; 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21) and in his virtues catalogs (2 Cor. 6:6; Gal 5:22-23; Col 3:12). It’s a rhetorical device meant to emphasize the virtues but should not really be subjected to excessive scrutiny.
Paul calls his readers to follow his example which he has done before.

Second Sunday of Advent

2005-11-23T12:19:00.000-08:00

Second Sunday of Advent, December 4, 2005
2 Peter 3:8-18 (Peace)
Debate about the authorship of 2 Peter has continued for as long as the book has been a part of the discussion among Christians. In the third century, Origen wrote "Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built–against which the gates of Hades will not prevail–left one epistle of acknowledged authenticity. Suppose we allow that he left a second; yet, this is doubtful" (from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot, p. 516). Second Peter was the last book to actually be canonized into the New Testament showing the obvious skepticism the church showed to its authenticity. A few internal clues to its pseudonymous authorship include:

Peter himself died in 64 yet the letter contains references to historical events that happened much later.
–The collection and circulation of Paul’s letters and their view as "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16) probably did not occur until at least the late 90's.
–The passing of the Apostles (2 Peter 3:2) and the diminishing hope of Christ’s return (2 Peter 3:4)
Complex Greek that is doubtful of a first century Jewish fisherman.
Saying that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter is a little more threatening than saying Matthew didn’t write the gospel of Matthew. None of the gospels explicitly claim any specific authorship. The authors were placed on them after the fact by tradition. However, the opening verse of 2 Peter says it was written by Simon Peter. Some conservative scholars defend Peter’s authorship of the letter. Yet the conservative scholar Bruce Metzger who offers credible–or at least plausible–defense of Peter’s authorship of 1 Peter writes, "In light of such intenral and external evidence [similar to what’s been detailed above] one must conclude that II Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 258-259).

There are other conservative biblical scholars who defend Peter’s authorship. But should we choose to accept the majority opinion that Peter did not write 2 Peter, what do we do with a book that seems to contain such an obviously false statement? Do we simply ignore it? There are those who would say indeed we ought to intentionally ignore certain passages which contain content which we find exceedingly problematic. That is, we ought to have a canon within a canon. Certainly, whether we do so intentionally or not most of us function with such a canon within a canon–emphasizing certain passages and de-emphasizing others. A fact that some people relish in pointing out by referring to our unwillingness to stone our children for back talk as scripture would direct (Deut 21:18-21). For people so inclined, they could simply ignore 2 Peter and write it off as nonauthoritative since it seems to falsely present itself as the work of Jesus’s apostle.

Others defend the pseudonymous letters as scripture. Disciples biblical scholars Boring and Craddock emphasize that pseudonimity bothers us more than it would a first century person. The practice, they argue, was much more common then. Further they write, "The issue in each case [of pseudonymous authorship] is whether the document concerned represents the apostolic faith. The fact that the books are in the canon indicates that the early church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, heard in these documents the word of God, the authentic witness to the apostolic faith, as it tried to find its own way forward after the death of the apostles but before any authoritative tradition, canon, or organizational structure had been accepted" (M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People’s New Testament Commentary, p. 595). We can choose to ignore it or choose to accept it on the grounds that the Holy Spirit was at work not merely in the writing of the texts but also in the collection and canonization of the texts of the New Testament.

Obviously since I’ve chosen to preach on this text, I’m not one who believes it ought to be ignored. There are certain passages in both the Old and New Testament that I find so problematic that I do not believe they represents God’s word. The charge that gets rightfully made against people like me who choose to willfully deny the authority of certain passages is "How do you decide?" Aren’t we putting ourselves above scripture and making ourselves judges of the text rather than allowing the text to judge us? I haven’t worked out a completely acceptable answer to this question but here are a few guidelines that I try to follow.

I do not deny the authority of a passage simply because it calls me to do something I don’t want to do or asks me to believe something I find hard to believe.
I don’t like what Jesus said about seeking retribution (Matthew 5:38-42). Oh well. My discomfort doesn’t justify ignoring Christ’s teaching. I have find it hard to believe in the whole demon possession of a person but my incredulity doesn’t mean I get to ignore exorcism texts. I am obligated to wrestles with those texts even if I find them hard to grasp or accept at face value.
I cannot construct of view of scripture that excuses my behavior but judges others.
My friend Doug Skinner has said, "Be careful of anyone whose theology brings all the good news to them and all the judgement to someone else." Put another way, in the Old Testament a prophet was often called upon to bring words of God’s judgment against a group of people. God used them to call people to repentance. I believe few people are called by God to play that role. On the other hand, all of us are called to examine ourselves and seek to pursue holiness and serve the kingdom of God.
I can only deny the authority of a particular passage on the basis of a strong sense that the passage denies my understanding of the Gospel (God’s good news for humanity) and God’s vocation (what God expects people to be and to do).
Paul Ricoeur has described the situation in Protestantism where "you can criticize the Bible only by citing another text from the Bible" (from Figuring the Sacred, p. 71). In saying this, Ricoeur was being descriptive of Protestantism’s tendency. He didn’t necessarily advocate it as the correct approach. Such a practice leads to the accusation that you "can prove anything with the Bible" or justify any behavior from some passage of scripture. People line up their passages "for" or "against" whatever they themselves are "for" or "against." We must be diligently avoid such a practice. However, there is a sense of the gospel and its implications that can be articulated across the breadth of the Biblical witness. We identify that gospel by looking at the frequency and primacy of biblical testimony. Similarly, we can through discernment identify that which God expects us to do–God’s commands for a pure life and God’s call to service, mission and ministry. This process of discernment requires consistent and prayerful scripture study. It rarely works that we can come at the Bible with "our" questions and get straight answers. What does work is to cultivate a practice of daily scripture reading and deep, intentional Bible study in conversation with other Christians, that enables us to arrive at answers when they are needed. Well, that’s a long detour from the actual text. But, I thought it needed to be said and here’s as good a time as any to say it.

Our scripture reading begins in verse 8 which actually divides the actual thought. The author begins a new section of the letter in verse 1 where he explains his purpose in writing. The writer sought to return his audiences attention to continuing in the teaching they had received. In the opening passages of the letter (2 Peter 1:3ff), he describes the process of continuing in the faithful walk despite the corruption that surrounds us. Along with faith, he says, we must make every effort to add goodness, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection and love. He certainly suggests that those who lack these qualities fall short of God’s expectations and they do not experience the fullness of God’s promise (2 Peter 1:8-11). This process is called sanctification. Sanctification is a process by which the Holy Spirit works in us to cultivate a Christ-like nature. In the simplest terms, sanctification is godly self-improvement. It requires endurance. In particular for the audience of 2 Peter, the motivation to live a holy life and work toward sanctification came with the belief that Christ would come back soon. However, as time wore on and Jesus’s apostles began to die, the sense that Christ would return soon began to wain. Scoffers apparently compounded the problem for the early church mocking their belief in Christ’s eminent return. Second Peter addresses this concern head on reminding readers that God’s time and ours are not the same. "A day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day." If we think God is being slow, we are calculating slowness on our scales and trying to impose those scales on God. God is not confined by creation; God is the Creator.

In this is also a motivation. God’s delay in bringing history to a close is not stoic apathy toward our human plight. God is not teasing us by waiting so long. Rather, God’s delay is born out of God’s love. God doesn’t desire anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Verse 10 raises speculation about the "day of the Lord" or what some now call the "rapture." All too often, people speculate about the who, what, when, where and how of this day and forget prophetic trajectory. What do I mean by prophetic trajectory? I mean the point that a biblical writer was trying to make. Read through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, the book of Revelation in the New Testament, and other books, and you will read about scenes of incredible destruction. In these futuristic visions, God is portrayed as one who comes to bring destruction and judgment to the world. This pictures can be both exciting and frightening. Yet fixating on the these scenes without considering their purpose is a bit like reducing the Fourth of July to a day of fireworks. Yes, the fireworks are salient symbols of July 4th but we celebrate the Fourth of July to commemorate our nation’s founding. Similarly, the scenes of the Day of the Lord in the Bible serve a broader purpose. In this case, they grasp our attention and call us to holy living. "Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness . . ?" (vs. 11). Given all these, we strive to be at peace, without spot or blemish, patient and wise. Regardless of what we believe concerning the Day of the Lord, Peter’s call is to endure in the process of sanctification.

Isaiah 64:1-9

2005-11-23T12:17:00.000-08:00

First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2005
Isaiah 64:1-9 (Hope)

For now well over a hundred years, Biblical scholars have accepted the idea that Isaiah was written by two and perhaps three authors. Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, composed chapters 1-39. Another prophet writing wrote chapters 40-55. A third prophet, or the second prophet in a different setting, wrote chapters 56-66. The three parts of Isaiah have always been edited together. They share common themes and theological outlooks. Nonetheless, the historic circumstances surrounding the author of our focal text are decidedly different from those of the early part of the book. Specifically, chapters 56-66 address those who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity (see Ezra and Nehemiah). They now behold the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and God’s holy temple. The sight of the ruined temple provides the historical context for this prayer (Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-13). The prayer of Isaiah is a mixes contrition and confession, petition and hope. The contrition and confession comes as the prophet acknowledges how few call upon the name of the Lord or rely on God. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was understood by the prophet to be God’s punishment for sins. The petition and hope is expressed in the prophets desire for a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. It is also in the desire to see vengeance served against God’s enemies–likely those who both destroyed the temple but also those who stand in the way of the temple’s reconstruction.

This texts uses a variety of metaphoric images to convey its message. Isaiah asks that the enemies be caused to be like twigs ablaze or like boiling water. The picture envisioned is that of chaos. Unlike a log or coals which burns steadily and predictable, kindled twigs burn rapidly. They crackle and pop. The air pockets in the space between the wood causes the flames to bounce off one another. Similarly, boiling water rolls and bubbles. The writer had likely seen armies lined up in long, orderly rows, marching to destroy. He prays for their ordered marched to be disassembled.

To describe "us" (i.e., the people of Judah), Isaiah said that they had become like one unclean and like filthy rags. Unlike today where we make dish towels for the explicit purpose of cleaning, rags were probably the remaining material of old, worn garments. Something once in tact had become torn. Next, Isaiah describes his people as dried leaves. Something once vibrant had become lifeless. Finally, Isaiah, perhaps extending the metaphor of dried leaves, says that they have been blown about. Something once grounded has become scattered. Isaiah’s description of how they are encounters his image of what they might be–clay in the hands of God, the potter. In the act of making a pot, a potter reverses the process that Isaiah has described. Taking useless, scattered, earthen materials, the potter forms the pot into a useful, in tact, assembled object.

There is a close relationship between the hope that Isaiah has for the reforming of the temple and the city and the activity of repentance and God’s forgiveness. Where we often think of forgiveness as purely and internal matter, this writer envisioned forgiveness as an essential step in rebuilding the physical world in which they lived. It would to some rethinking, but it is perhaps some rethinking we ought to do, for us to consider repentance and forgiveness as essential steps in the rebuilding of our finances, our families, our careers, our church structures and our communities.

Biblical Reflections

2005-11-23T12:14:00.000-08:00

As part of my sermon preparations, I try to write a summary of the exegetical work I do for the sermon preparation. I call them "Biblical Reflections." They work best when they are done weeks in advance. I have not, however, been successful in accomplishing that for quite some time. I have decided to start postin these to this blog instead of sending them via e-mail.