A random thought

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

Things I wish I could say #1

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

Sermon Drop In

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

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

Listening to a Sermon--additional commentary 1

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

 

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

 

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

Sermon, Sunday, July 13, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lot's of Rumble; Little Rain

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon for June 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon Podcast

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

Switchpod feed
My Podcast Feed

Lord's Prayer Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preaching Guides

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

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

Matthew 1:18-19

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

Advent Songs vs. Christmas Carols

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

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


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

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

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

John 1:1-18--Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

Where to Worship Christmas Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthday Cards

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

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

Peace Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

Phillips and Kobia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon for the First Sunday of Advent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giving Thanks for BookNotes on CSPAN2

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.