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
Monday, February 11, 2008
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Lord's Prayer Part 1
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.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Preaching Guides
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Matthew 1:18-19
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.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Advent Songs vs. Christmas Carols
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
John 1:1-18--Part 1
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Where to Worship Christmas Day
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Birthday Cards
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.
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.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Peace Reflection
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Phillips and Kobia
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?
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
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.
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.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Giving Thanks for BookNotes on CSPAN2
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Third Sunday of Advent--Philippians 4:4-9
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Next Blog
At the top of most of the blog sites through blogspot, there's a "Next Blog" button. Lately, I've been randomly moving browsing blogs. It amazes me how many people use their blogs to wrestle with issues of faith. Even in a church as open-minded as ours, I don't see people asking the same complex, reflective or difficult questions as I do out on the internet. Could it be (a) that the people who ask the most interesting/important theological questions don't come to church; (b) that when they come they don't ask their questions out loud; (c) that church doesn't provide a context for serious question asking; (d) people are asking questions at church but I simply don't hear them because too many people are relating some benign detail of their week.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Authenticity and Inclusion--Dialogue Part 4
Authenticity refers to speaking in ways that reflect how your truly are. In computer terminology, when a program shows on screen what you can expect to get on the page, it is called WYSWIG (What you see is what you get). Anymore, nearly everything is WYSWIG so it's not that big a deal. But I remember the days of the blue background WordPerfect. Authenticity is the WYSWIG of human communication. Authenticity is communicative component of integrity.
Inclusion is a willingness to be in dialogue with those who disagree with us or who are not like us. Authenticity and inclusion are hard to correlate. We may genuinely dislike people, genuinely not want to be in dialogue with them. Authenticity would require us to be up front about that. Inclusion would require us to change that in ourselves. Tolerance is the mid-point between the two. Which is why I think tolerance as a value is really a mid-point and not an end goal. We need tolerance in a pluralistic culture yet hopefully we will reach that point where we are authentically inclusive of people's diversity.
To be perfectly honest, I think there are limits to inclusion. I think there ought to be limits in a variety of settings. We ought to limit our inclusions of person who volunteer with children and youth. We must make every effort to ensure their safety and their moral development. We ought to be careful who we include in the group of people who speak for us. Yet, when it comes to dialogue should we, as adults, refuse to hear people out. Put another way is there any danger to listening to people no matter what their message is?
Inclusion is a willingness to be in dialogue with those who disagree with us or who are not like us. Authenticity and inclusion are hard to correlate. We may genuinely dislike people, genuinely not want to be in dialogue with them. Authenticity would require us to be up front about that. Inclusion would require us to change that in ourselves. Tolerance is the mid-point between the two. Which is why I think tolerance as a value is really a mid-point and not an end goal. We need tolerance in a pluralistic culture yet hopefully we will reach that point where we are authentically inclusive of people's diversity.
To be perfectly honest, I think there are limits to inclusion. I think there ought to be limits in a variety of settings. We ought to limit our inclusions of person who volunteer with children and youth. We must make every effort to ensure their safety and their moral development. We ought to be careful who we include in the group of people who speak for us. Yet, when it comes to dialogue should we, as adults, refuse to hear people out. Put another way is there any danger to listening to people no matter what their message is?
Friday, August 19, 2005
Morning Greetings
From time to time, I think "wouldn't it be great if I said something more meaningful to my family as we departed in the mornings?" I mean, "see ya' later" hardly qualifies as a pep talk for a hard day.
Deborah DeWinter, the Programme executive for the World Council of Churches in the United States told a story once of an African father who would say to his children, "Don't let anyone take the Jesus out of you. Don't take the Jesus out of anyone." That struck me as profound. So, I've been saying that to my daughter the last three days. This morning she replied, "I know, Dad, you said that to me yesterday. You say that to me every day." I haven't said it every day this was only day three. I've taken her to school close to 600 times. Which rounds out to mean that I've said it .5 percent of the time. I don't know if this was her way of saying, "Don't embarass me." Though we were in the car and no one could tell what we were saying to one another. OR perhaps her way of saying, "I appreciate that." Either way, I think she was fairly firm this morning that the Jesus in her wasn't going anywhere and if the Jesus in anyone else moved, it wasn't her fault.
I shall try again on Monday to find something meaningful to say. Though profundity is hard at 8:30 in the morning sitting in the middle of a Jr. High parking lot.
Deborah DeWinter, the Programme executive for the World Council of Churches in the United States told a story once of an African father who would say to his children, "Don't let anyone take the Jesus out of you. Don't take the Jesus out of anyone." That struck me as profound. So, I've been saying that to my daughter the last three days. This morning she replied, "I know, Dad, you said that to me yesterday. You say that to me every day." I haven't said it every day this was only day three. I've taken her to school close to 600 times. Which rounds out to mean that I've said it .5 percent of the time. I don't know if this was her way of saying, "Don't embarass me." Though we were in the car and no one could tell what we were saying to one another. OR perhaps her way of saying, "I appreciate that." Either way, I think she was fairly firm this morning that the Jesus in her wasn't going anywhere and if the Jesus in anyone else moved, it wasn't her fault.
I shall try again on Monday to find something meaningful to say. Though profundity is hard at 8:30 in the morning sitting in the middle of a Jr. High parking lot.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Presumption and Burden
Earlier today in a story about Mayor Laura Miller's attempt to have D'Angelo Lee forcibly removed from the land commission twice people made the comment that people are innocent until proven guilty. As is common in America a good legal axiom has here been truncated to make a false statement. A person is either guilty or innocent on the basis of the decisions they make. When people commit crimes, they cease being innocent whether they are ever found guilty or not. Similarly, people who have not commited crimes remain innocent even if a jury finds them guilty.
In the American legal system, a person is presumed innocent. This is a legal concept rooted in Roman law and quite possibly Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 19:15, "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." In COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895), Justice White writing for the majority said, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." The presumption of innocence is an important legal and ethical concept. However, its a good example of a social construction.
A person is not truly innocent if they have committed a crime. The legal system is designed to treat them as innocent. This means that those wishing to prosecute them for a crime have the burden of proof. They have the obligation to prove a person's guilt before the jury. If they do not prove the guilt, the person continues without threat of further prosecution or punishment. Presumption and burden of proof works in lots of different settings.
When a parent sets a curfew for 10:00 pm this 10:00 pm curfew has presumption. A teenager wanting to exceed that has the burden of proof to convince mom or dad that it should be exceeded in a particular situation. In an academic policy debate, the status quo has presumption and those wishing to change the status quo has burden of proof. This team is usually called the affirmative as they are the ones affirming the resolution and the resolution calls for a change. Academic competitive debates never end in a tie for this reason. If the affirmative team doesn't meet its burden of proof the round is awarded to the negative. Philip Tompkins, an organizational communication scholar, used the ideas of presumption and burden of proof in discussion the Marshall Space Flight Center's communication patterns. In the 1960's a person who thought an operation was unsafe had presumption. Those who wanted to move ahead had to prove that their designs were safe. Tompkins discovered in the wake of the Challenger Explosion that was largely blamed on Marshall that by the 80's presumption and burden of proof had changed. Those who thought something was unsafe then had the burden of proof.
Presumption and burden of proof are not ontological. They are designated to one side and the other of a contentious issue by those who mitigate the contentious issue. My short term appeal is that people ought not say a person "is" innocent until proven guilty but that a person is "presumed" innocent. On a deeper level, we should be aware of how presumption and burden of proof operate in so many different contexts.
In the American legal system, a person is presumed innocent. This is a legal concept rooted in Roman law and quite possibly Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 19:15, "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." In COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895), Justice White writing for the majority said, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." The presumption of innocence is an important legal and ethical concept. However, its a good example of a social construction.
A person is not truly innocent if they have committed a crime. The legal system is designed to treat them as innocent. This means that those wishing to prosecute them for a crime have the burden of proof. They have the obligation to prove a person's guilt before the jury. If they do not prove the guilt, the person continues without threat of further prosecution or punishment. Presumption and burden of proof works in lots of different settings.
When a parent sets a curfew for 10:00 pm this 10:00 pm curfew has presumption. A teenager wanting to exceed that has the burden of proof to convince mom or dad that it should be exceeded in a particular situation. In an academic policy debate, the status quo has presumption and those wishing to change the status quo has burden of proof. This team is usually called the affirmative as they are the ones affirming the resolution and the resolution calls for a change. Academic competitive debates never end in a tie for this reason. If the affirmative team doesn't meet its burden of proof the round is awarded to the negative. Philip Tompkins, an organizational communication scholar, used the ideas of presumption and burden of proof in discussion the Marshall Space Flight Center's communication patterns. In the 1960's a person who thought an operation was unsafe had presumption. Those who wanted to move ahead had to prove that their designs were safe. Tompkins discovered in the wake of the Challenger Explosion that was largely blamed on Marshall that by the 80's presumption and burden of proof had changed. Those who thought something was unsafe then had the burden of proof.
Presumption and burden of proof are not ontological. They are designated to one side and the other of a contentious issue by those who mitigate the contentious issue. My short term appeal is that people ought not say a person "is" innocent until proven guilty but that a person is "presumed" innocent. On a deeper level, we should be aware of how presumption and burden of proof operate in so many different contexts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)