Sermon Sunday, June 21, 2015

Illusion of Invincibility
Genesis 6:9-22
These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypressb wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 Make a roofc for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.” 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

When I was in Elementary School, my principal was Mr. Jack Herring.  He had been at Johnston Elementary for years and he was loved.  Well I was a part of a group of boys that was threatening to scuffle with another group of boys.  It was pre-teen posturing.  And, I’ll be quick to add, “They started it.”  Needless to say a teacher intercepted the mounting tensions after school and directed us to visit Mr. Herring in his office . . . immediately . . . and we went.  Mr. Herring sat behind his large wooden desk, he heard the indictment of our broo-haha.  He reached down and slid open one of the wooden draws of his wooden desk, and he pulled out a paddle.  It was large and decorated and it looked to unwieldy to be taken seriously.  He said this is one of my paddles.  You know, I don’t like using this paddle.  It was a gift.  But it’s too heavy to really swing.  Kind of hurts my hand.  Then he reached down into his drawer and pulled  out a thin paddle, worn smooth with age, it had athletic taped wrapped around one end, “No,” he said holding the paddle in his hand, “This is the one I prefer.  It’s light enough to swing but solid enough to sting.”   He laid that paddle down on the desk.  He reached down and pulled out another and said, “I used to use this one but it cracked.”  He pulled out a couple more, holding each one, surveying its size, weight, velocity, grip.  He laid each one side-by-side on his desk and said finally, “Boys, I don’t want to use any of these paddles.  But I will if I have to.  Do you think I have to use one of these paddles today?”  Silently we shook our heads, “No.” “Good, don’t make me use them then.”  Then he told us to leave his office.  That was the end of the scuffling. 

Whenever I have to deal with a story like God sending a flood to wipe out the majority of humanity in order to start over again, or ordering certain people executed because they didn’t take worship seriously, or casting people in the lake of fire, I struggle with how to make sense of it.  How do we reconcile our message that God loved the world (the whole world) so much that God gave his only son for the world?  How do we square these stories with the affirmation that The Lord, the Lord, is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love?  How do we make it make sense alongside the proclamation that God is love and those who abide in love abide in God?  Yesterday during Bible and Brunch we talked about a second century Christian leader who was eventually denounced as a heretic named Marcion.  Marcion believed, at least according to the press clippings, that the God of the Old Testament was a totally different God than the God proclaimed in Jesus Christ.  The God of the Old Testament was judgmental and angry but that God had been defeated by this other God—the God of love and mercy.  And that’s one way to do it, I suppose, but I don’t believe it’s true and neither did Jesus by the way.  The early church rejected his heresy. It seems that anytime anyone created a completely coherent system to explain God, the main church dismissed it as heresy.  God is free and at times in predictable. We do not have permission, I don't think, to edit out the parts simply because they don't jive with the version of God we've created in our minds. And at least one way of seeing these judgment stories for me is to remember that perhaps God is like Mr. Jack Herring.  Laying out the paddles—there’s destruction by flood (but I promised never to use that), there’s an earthquake to that opens us and destroys the offenders, there’s striking people with diseases if they are dishonest, or taking their life suddenly because they withhold their gift intended for me.  Perhaps the judgmental texts are like that are God’s way of saying, “I have these paddles, but I don’t want to use them.  Children, don’t make me have to use them.” 

We set the scripture readings months ago and chose to use the story of Noah’s Ark long before we knew what this week would hold.  We are in a series called the “I illusions.”  All the texts are taken from Genesis.  We started with the illusion of innocence—with Adam and Eve.  Then with the illusion of isolation-with Cain and Abel.  And today we move to the illusion of invincibility.  It begins with a man not like Adam or Cain but one described as righteous, blameless, and pious.  The opening verse contains it’s own three point sermon.  Noah was righteous—he had integrity with himself; he was blameless—he had faithful dealings with his peers; he walked with God.  The description  evokes the words of Micah—God has shown you what is good and what the Lord requires—do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God.  

We imagined then that we would emphasize the nature of humanity’s sin at the time of God’s grievance with humanity.  Noah’s neighbors were guilty of violence.  It’s mentioned more than once.  Contrary to the Puritanical judgment that sin is limited to  gluttony, debauchery, bad habits and bad hygiene, the story is clear that what grieved the heart of God most was humanity’s destruction of humanity.  In contrast with the “good” God saw in creation in chapter 1,  here God sees all of creation—and not just humanity—as corrupt, prone to  decay, not worth keeping around.  The earth itself, and not just the people on it, have stopped acting the way they should.  Clarence Jordan sees in this as the first stage in human development.  It is a stage of unlimited aggression. When the law is given in Exodus, a rule is created that says and eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot—in Latin its called lex talionis the law of talion, the law of retaliation.  Which says that the punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the injury.  With the introduction of lex talionis we move from unlimited aggression to limited aggression.  Then there develops a moral principle that says, “you shall love your neighbor but hate your enemy.”  The third stage is from limited aggression to limited love.  But finally with Jesus Christ we hear—love your enemy, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you.  The movement is complete from unlimited aggression in Noah, to limited aggression in the law, to limited love in the commands, to unlimited love in Christ.  But it is still hard to believe that God’s ultimate plan is unlimited love, even of one’s enemies when God’s answer to humanity’s violence is their complete destruction—with the exception of Noah and his wife, and their three sons and their wives.

We  planned on saying all of that before this week.  Before a young man, radicalized by racist white supremacy, entered Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, sat through an hour’s worth of Bible study and then opened fire killing, Rev. Clementa Pickney, Rev. Daniel Simmons Sr., Myra Thompson, Cynthia Hurd, Rev. Sharonda Singleton, Tywanza Sanders, Rev. DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Susie Jackson, and Ethel Lance.  That was before the flood of rhetoric filled what should have been quiet spaces of lament into stormy corners of advocacy.  We planned on saying that before another group was victimized.  Some of us wanting to distance this shooter’s actions from the racism prevalent in our culture have claimed he was mentally ill.  That kind of language displays the worst sort of use of the phrase  “mental illness.”  Mental illness is a broad category that contains many complex and difficult disorders like anxiety, depression, identity disorders like schizophrenia, and eating disorders just to name a few.  The mentally ill have a hard enough time being treated with the dignity they deserve and getting the treatment they need.  We should resist throwing around the term mental illness as a way of explaining away the inexplicable.  The mentally ill are not evil. Let's not burden them with this. 

We had planned on talking about the illusion of invincibility before the events of this week would so thoroughly and painfully reveal our vulnerability.  My heart hurts and I despair.  I am too weary to  speak of humanity’s violence toward humanity right now—not the ancient violence of Noah’s day nor the senseless violence of our own.  I do not wish to speak of God’s justice or rightness or capacity to judge because the implications frighten me.  We have not advanced so far beyond unlimited aggression; there’s no way to practice an eye for an eye with someone who has destroyed so much; I’m not sure I can trust my neighbor much less love him; and as for loving my enemy . . . . In the midst of the storm we want an escape hatch that takes us to the rainbow instantly. Get me to some place where I can assure myself that God doesn’t really act this way.  NO, cannot act this way.  But the escape hatch isn’t there and if it was, I’m afraid we’d find that it’s not a rainbow that awaits us—not a promise that everything will be alright.  I am not certain as to how we reconcile all of this with the overarching view that God is love. I do think That stories like Noah need to be in front of us because we risk putting God in a kind of box defined by our own conception of love.  We want to insist that God never does anything that we do not like and by that we say that’s what it means to claim God is love.  But God is free and God is just and the God of love is still a God of holiness with high expectations for how we are to live and treat one another.  We cannot harbor the illusion of our invincibility and live as people defined by violence and pretend that before God there is no reckoning. 

It shouldn’t have taken an aggressive act against a church to arouse my consciousness but it has. God’s authority stretches beyond the walls of any religious building.  The violence in Charleston, SC is the latest chapter in a horrific narrative that includes  McKinney, Garland, Baltimore, Ferguson, Boston, Newtown, Aurora . . . the list goes on. In my lifetime, I’ve not seen a season as volatile and frightening as the last few years.  This includes the difficult years of 1992 (the LA riots), 1993 (Waco compound burning), and 1994 (Oklahoma City Bombings).  Evil people acting in evil ways will be with us. We know that.  What we do not know is whether good people will counteract and mitigate the evil or simply acquiesce.  My sisters and brothers, we cannot simply hope to simply tread water.  There is an ark to be built and lives to be saved.  We build that ark through forging relationships with people in our community.  We cannot let the fear of who our neighbor might be overwhelm what our response to our neighbor must be.  I have reached out to some neighboring churches and tomorrow night at 7 pm, we will be at the College Park Center to hold a prayer vigil for Emanuel AME and for the nation and for ourselves.  We’ve also been invited to attend a Men’s day gathering at Greater Community Missionary Baptist Church next Sunday and I hope we will nurture that developing relationship. Today, I do not feel that God has cast the rainbow quite yet.  Nor do I believe God is pulling out paddles and placing them in front of us.  I believe God is giving us the materials and dimensions of an Ark and is beckoning us to build--build connections, build relationships, throw open the doors that others may enter and together we may sail the choppy seas of reconciliation. 

In Defense of Annoying People

1.  We overuse a metaphor we still find helpful.  "Journey" may be overused and feel self-helpish or new agey or just flakey, but how else do we offer a positive frame for a period of time that has been filled with ups and downs and remains unpredictable?  The metaphor offered clarity at some point and that's why it gets repeated.

2.  We inadequately express ideas that cannot be adequately expressed.  For example, I believe God acted to reconcile the division between us and God's self.  You may disagree with the assumption that a division existed (exists).  You may disagree with the conviction that God had to act to reconcile.  However, we offer ideas in hopes that people will collaborate with us as we seek truth.  

3.  We insert our own human failings into difficult situations.  We hug when we're supposed to shake hands.  We refrain from touching when we're supposed to offer affection. We say the wrong thing trying to console.  We process our own insecurities when trying to relate to someone else's.  Appropriate responses differ from person to person and we have not been given the mind-reading gifft.  Good intentions do not excuse bad actions, but we chose being present and making a mistake instead of leaving someone to suffer in isolation.   

4.  We ask honest questions.  Not every question is a rhetorical question, a loaded question, or a trap.  Sometimes, we are asking a genuine question.  Instead of filling in the blanks with your judgment of what you think we're thinking, could you simply fill in the blanks with what you're thinking?

  

Hall of Fame Induction Puzzles (and Pleases) Me

This past weekend, I was inducted into the WTAMU Communication Department Hall of Fame.  Someone asked me what a person does to be inducted into the Communication Hall of Fame at their alma mater. I did not have a good answer then and I am not sure I have one now. I am not a huge financial contributor to my school—I should be but I’m not. Other schools seem to use this kind of honor as a fundraising event. It became clear to me as the event unfolded that it was directly aimed at their present majors. Student teams from Mass Com had been sent to each of the inductees. They produced videos featuring us. Their work was excellent. They focused a lot of attention on advice we might give to communication students. They scheduled a reception that mainly featured inductees and students. It was meant to help them talk to professionals in various industries. The whole event seemed designed to communicate the message that a person can do a lot of different things with a communication degree and to dramatize that message with the inductees. Along with me, we inducted a man who serves the elderly as a social worker in Portland, OR, a print journalist and a local TV news anchor.

My induction into WTAMU’s Communication Hall of Fame comes at a time when I do not feel a great deal of professional success. I am not despairing; I am perplexed. But, I want to say two things about my induction. The first is that I am proud of my department for selecting a minister.  I hope I would feel this way had the minister not been me. We live in a world that still makes movies like “God’s Not Dead” and perpetuates stereotypes about the tension between the religiously observant and educated elites. This tension is as old as Christianity itself going back at least to the point that Tertullian asked, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” So, I think it is significant that my state-supported university recognizes ministry as a laudable enterprise for its graduates. Admittedly, per capita worship attendance among the faculty probably rivals anything you’d find at any explicitly religious school. Students more readily identify their social circle by naming the student ministry they participate in than sorority and fraternity membership. Still, I find it significant for a school to say ministry matters, faith is legitimate, and humble service to communities is worthy of “fame.”

The second thing that my induction gave me was the chance to do is to say thank you to the people who invested in me. I tried to get everyone named in my acceptance speech (Vartabedian, Seabourn, Coons, Smith, Yates). But, two people stand out in my experience—James Hallmark and Trudy Hanson. I had the opportunity of co-writing papers with both of them, took both of them for multiple classes and learned a great deal about their thought process and their work ethic. In many ways the two played contrasting roles in my education. Hallmark was my “burden of proof” professor. In academic debate, the side with burden of proof is the one with the responsibility to make their case. I always felt as though Hallmark’s stance toward students was, “I’m not yet persuaded but I am persuadable.” My abilities had burden of proof. Hanson was my “presumption” professor. With Hanson my abilities had presumption. She was endlessly encouraging. She still is. One might think that the presumption professor is easier. Hardly. The presumption professor is the one who doesn’t accept excuses for why we think we can’t do something. She’d calmly listen as I lamented my feelings of inadequacy, smile and say, “Well, I think you can do it."  I needed those two messages then . . . I still do.

Hope Springs

You Coulda Had Yer Pick
Hope Springs at MOVIECLIPS.com

Feeling Called Out On-Line

Social media has given us a unprecedented avenue to complain about other people's behavior.  Don't like the way a person dresses in the supermarket? Post about it on Facebook.  Think a person's parenting isn't up to snuff?  Post about it on Facebook.  Think another has faulty theology?  Post about it on Facebook. I've posted this sort of thing and thought about posting a lot more.

Then last week a friend posted a comment that seemed particularly aimed at me.  It was presented in a general way.  You know the formula, "No one should ever do X.  In the 21st Century decent human beings should know that X is wrong.  Especially ministers.  Of all people, Ministers should avoid X.  You should know better!"  (Where X = an offensive behavior).  Normally I agree with the ranter and I'm glad to join them in feeling morally superior but, not this time.  This time, I recognized that I was guilty of the very thing this person was condemning.

I had thought about responding but, I couldn't come up with anything to say.  I didn't necessarily want to defend the behavior.  The person did have a point.  It just felt like a public shaming more than "provoking one another to love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10:24).  It just made me think of the need for a social media Miranda rights.  "Anything you say, do or wear can be used against you in the court of social media."

Last night I was talking with some friends around a dinner table about experiences in church.  One of them mentioned a story about a woman, a devote Christian, who just happened to be wearing earrings in a church that strictly denounced the use of jewelry.  Rather than speaking gently to her in private, the preacher preached directly at her during the sermon.  The public humiliation wounded her.  In a less direct way, that's what these social media complaints feel like.  Certainly not as damaging as being singled out in a sermon but, still a public chastisement.  I wonder if we might not succeed in truly making the world a better place if we learned to speak directly and privately to people who act in ways we think are inappropriate.  My sense is that we would be more likely to change people than blanket posts directed anyone and everyone.

Matthew 28:11-15

Matthew 28:11-15 contains the report of an alternate theory about the resurrection. Because Matthew is a believer it is told in a way that speaks of conspiracy theories and bribery. I'm not dismissing the authority of scripture when I say that we see evidence here of Matthew's defensiveness. I do think believers get it into their heads (our heads) that certain things are true on out terms and anyone who has a different perspective is up to no good. 

In seminary, we were exposed to theologians who did not believe that Jesus lphysically rose from the grave. My initial reaction was strongly negative. The more I listened, the more I learned to value their insights. It was false to say they didn't believe in the resurrection. They believed that resurrection was something other than the physical resuscitation of the body.  It caused me to expand my own understanding of resurrection. If it is simply the return to life of one who was dead then why isn't Christ's resurrection viewed in the same light as Lazarus?  

I have come to believe that resurrection is an act of validation. In crucifixion the world sought to deny the legitimacy of Jesus's claims. In the resurrection God weighed in and judged the argument in favor of Christ. And in that way, it is an act of Grace. It is an eternal offer for people to rethink their rejection of Christ and his way. The empty tomb remains an open door through which people who have resisted God can return. 

What city are your Bible habits from?

            I sometimes ask people to be “Berean Christians.”  Acts 17 records the story of Paul and Silas, Christian missionaries who were run out of Thessalonica.  They went to a town called Berea or Beroea (NRSV).  In Berea, Paul and Silas got a better hearing.  The writer of Acts explained, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”   You’ll occasionally see Sunday School classes called “Bereans” in older congregations.  It’s a reference to this diligence in studying scripture.

            You will want a good translation of the Bible—or two or three.  The Bible was written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and in Greek (New Testament).  So, we rely on a Bible translation.  There are a lot of translations of the Bible.  I don’t know why there are so many English translations but there are.  Let me make reference to just a couple.

            NRSV (New Revised Standard Version)—This is the version in our pew Bibles and is usually my preferred translation.  It tries to strike a balance between readability and accuracy of translation.

            NASB (New American Standard Bible)—The NASB strives for a more literal translation.  When you read an NRSV side-by-side with an NASB you’ll find that the NASB has more awkward sentence structure and several more footnotes explaining terminology.  Where the NRSV was designed primarily for the public reading of scripture, the NASB was primarily designed for study.

            NIV (New International Version)—The NIV was published in the 1970’s by Evangelical publishers.  It was revised in 2011.  The NIV like the NRSV seeks to be both accessible and accurate. 

            There’s a very helpful and short resource entitled, The Bible in English Translation:  An Essential Guide written by Steven M. Sheeley and Robert N. Nash, Jr.  It describes several more translations and gives a very helpful description of how these translations came to be. 

            I pray that you will take time to read scripture, take time to know what you’re reading, and prayerfully consider what it means for you.  Bereans were more noble because they searched the scriptures daily.  May the same be said of us.   

Observing Eastertide

The scripture reading today is Matthew 28:1-11. 

The Monday after Easter is the day to test whether we believe what we said the day before.  Easter begins on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox.  I think somewhere I read that there is a more complex algorithm that determines it but that the definition fits the Easter in most US churches.  Easter Sunday begins the season known as Eastertide that stretches for seven weeks until Pentecost.  I struggle to really make Easter journey solid.  I suspect I'm not alone.  Just as I do not observe twelve days of Christmastide because our culture has moved on, I tend not to observe the 50 days of Eastertide because the culture surrounding me moves on--to Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Graduations and the wedding season.  This year, I'm making a commitment to Eastertide.  I invite you to make it with me.  I've collected the Gospel stories about Christ's resurrection and resurrection appearance along with some texts from the Epistles that speak about resurrection.  My goal is to read through these texts during Eastertide and to ask the question each time as I do, "What does it mean to walk in newness of life?" 

 

April 20-April 26

Matthew 28:1–8

Matthew 28:9–10

Matthew 28:11–15

Matthew 28:16–20

Mark 16:1–8

 

April 27-May 3

Mark 16:9–11

Mark 16:12–13

Mark 16:14–18

Luke 24:1–12

Luke 24:10–11

 

May 4-May 10

Luke 24:13–35

Luke 24:36–43

Luke 24:44–53

John 5:19–29

John 11:17–27

 

May 11-May 17

John 11:38–45

John 20:1–13

John 20:14–18

John 20:19–23

John 20:24–29

 

May 18-May 24 John 21:1–14 John 21:15–25 Acts 10:34–43 Romans 1:1–7 Romans 4:13–25

May 25-May 31 Romans 6:1-14 Romans 8:1–12 Romans 10:5–13 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 2 Corinthians 4:1–15

June 1-June 7 2 Corinthians 5:11–21 Ephesians 2:1–10 Philippians 2:5–11 Colossians 1:15–20 1 Peter 1:13–25

 

 

Me being wrong doesn't make you right

The internet has given a handful of people unprecedented power to correct the mistakes of the rest of us.  I’m not immune.  I once did a blog-post trying to rebuff people who refer to praise and worship songs as “7/11” songs.  Sometimes, though, our efforts to correct people’s mistakes can reveal more problems in our own thinking than it corrects in others. 

For Example, Ben Irwin recently blogged about five bible verses the rest of us tend to misuse.  He’s right enough, I suppose, in his assessment but I think he reveals his own blind spots in the process.

We misuse Jeremiah 29:11, “For I know the plans I have for you plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper . . .”  He implies that those who display this verse on Christian inspirational posters are probably thinking that it refers to “bad hair days, corporate ladders, or financial success.”  He explains that Jeremiah was addressing people who were facing an exile that would last 70 years.  What we mean by reciting the text today is not what it meant when it was written. 

Two responses—first, my 22 years in ministry have taught me one thing about people:  they are more complex than they appear.  I have learned that many people going through pain I simply cannot fathom.  Jeremiah 29:11 may be keeping a suicidal teenager afloat, or a man who’s been out of work for six months "keeping on keeping on", or motivating a diabetic to get into shape.  Jeremiah 29:11 doesn’t address a high school context, a labor-market context, or a medical context.  But, if you think that God doesn’t care about depressed teenagers, out-of-work laborers, or diabetics, then we’re probably talking about two different understandings of who God is. I don't think God minds their "misuse" of the text if it keeps them moving forward and faithful.  I think Christians need to get out of the business of assuming we know what’s going through people’s minds because we think we know what’s going on in their lives.  Just as “That verse you keep quoting? It may not mean what you think it means.” So also, people quoting that verse may not mean what you think they mean either. 

Second, all texts are taken out of context.  All biblical texts had a time and place being addressed.  No biblical text was specifically addressed to 21^st Century, middle-class America, except maybe John 17:20-23 (probably not that one either but, I was reaching).  If the Bible is going to speak to us today, we have to strive for dynamic analogies between our day and the day addressed by the text.  Exegesis—striving to understand what a text meant when it was written, to whom it was written, by whom it was written—is essential but not complete.  The Bible becomes the Word of God as we seek to go from understanding its context and content to our context.  By the way, the Bible itself reveals this.  Later texts in the Old Testament reach back to retrieve earlier traditional elements and do so without insisting upon exact quotation or accurate contextualization.  New Testament writers also quote the Old Testament and do so without following the rules of exegesis.  (great treatment of this in Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith).  Exegesis opens up and sharpens application but does not settle it. 

Irwin said we misuse Romans 8:28, “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God.”  And then he corrected our translation saying  “. . . a better translation is ‘In all things, God works for the good of those who love him.’”  The problem is, “in all things God” is not necessarily a better translation.  Ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied by hand until at least the invention of the printing press in the 1500s.  The diversity between Greek copies of any text are complex enough that some biblical scholars devote their entire careers to sorting out what are the most likely original versions of texts verse by verse.  They are called text critics and they have what I would regard as the dirtiest job in biblical scholarship.  Bruce Metzger, a respected text critic, explains that indeed the grammatical construction that makes God the subject of the sentence (i.e., ho Theos in the nominative) does appear in some manuscripts. The committee that edited the United Bible Society Greek New Testament (4^th edition) regarded them as less likely to be original than the texts that had “all” (panta in the nominative case) as the original.  So, it could be translated, “In all things God works for good . . .”as the NIV translates it but, that’s not a definitively better translation.  Translation is tricky business. Be careful about claiming that something is better translated one way rather than another. 

Irwin seems to have a problem with prosperity gospel preachers who misuse Luke 11:9 or athletes who quote Philippians 4:13.  I agree with him that we too easily grab on to texts assuming that they mean that God can be conscripted into our agendas. The people who do it manipulatively to line their pockets anger me also.  But, self-interest creeps into everything. The difficulty is the binary that he continues to thrust: People use a text to mean X but the original author meant Y.  I think a better way to understand this process of allowing scripture to become to word of God is seeing it more as an essay test rather than a multiple choice.  One thing I learned doing essay tests was that if I kept writing about it, I’d likely land on an acceptable answer or weary my professor into giving me at least partial credit.  Multiple choice questions are either right or wrong.  I can sense that Irwin is fed up with people who have clearly misused a passage.  They keep choosing “A—it’s all good things for me and bad things for you” when they should be considering “B—It’s more complicated than it looks;” OR “C—There’s a word of warning.” Or “D—probably shouldn’t touch this text with a ten foot pole.”  What I see happening, though, is that we have frightened increasing numbers of people away from scripture by over-correcting their interpretation of scripture.  Maybe what we need is a new paradigm that teaches people that all interpretations are partial, contextual, and made by people “prone to wander.”  And that those interpretations are good and necessary.  Perhaps we should teach people that the right interpretation isn’t the one that ends the discussion but the one that continues to look, listen, study and discern.  I’m not sure I would love scripture nearly as much had Ephesians 2:10 not gotten me through the 8^th grade in one piece.  The whole of Ephesians 2 and Ephesians itself and the Deutero-Pauline literature is far more complex than I realized at that point.  But, I continue to believe God spoke through that one verse to that one 13 year old kid.  I think many people need to be able to find just one passage of scripture that they can hang their hearts on for a while before they can gather the motivation to study the rest of scripture and work to study it rightly.

We agree that Matthew 26:11 does not excuse people neglecting the poor.  Neglecting the poor in Jesus name isn’t just bad scripture study it is sin.  But, we shouldn’t overlook another aspect of that text in its context which is that it is good to enjoy the presence of Christ when Christ is present.  I believe it is the same with scripture.  We should let scripture speak on its own terms and mean what it means.  Yet, we should not let the process of intentional scripture study steal the joy from scripture study. I am grateful that Irwin reminds us that the message of scripture IS NOT:  God will fulfill your agenda.  Agreed.  But we should be just as quick to say:  But God’s agenda as revealed in scripture though at times painfully honest and confrontational is ultimately good and leads to true joy. 

Pastor's Class lessons

Pastor’s class is a class that introduces students to the faith that leads to baptism.  As is the case almost every time I teach something, I learn as much if not more than the students.  Somewhat randomly, here are some things I learned through this season of Pastor’s Class.

1.       Sometimes you can work so hard to deliver one important message that you fail to deliver the other important messages.  I have tried to protect a person’s freedom to choose for as long as I have thought about my role in enabling people to make their confession of faith.  Faith was never forced on me.  People made sure I knew who God is but did not force me into a relationship with Him.  I have treasured that and I have tried very hard to make sure that I protect that same freedom.  What I’ve come to understand this year is that sometimes protecting that freedom can send the wrong message.  It can send the message that I (we) don’t really care whether a person accepts Christ or not.  We try very hard not to pressure people to join First Christian Church.  Do we sometimes try so hard not to pressure people that we leave them with the impression that it doesn’t matter to us whether they join or not?  Somehow we need to find a way to say to others “I will protect your freedom to choose AND I will rejoice when your choice moves toward God’s plan for your life.”

2.       The presence of other adults matters greatly. For the first time,  I have asked elders to serve as mentors this year.  They worshiped with the students on Sunday and then afterward had lunch, answered questions about their faith, and then we all went bowling together.  It was fun.  But the other thing I noticed is how important it was.  It was important for the kids to interact with school teachers, engineers, computer experts, scientists, and retirees who love Jesus Christ.  Most people don’t grow up to become ministers.  Consequently, kids need models of faithful living.  I am also very glad Bill Jeffreys included a day of fun with the mentors.  The playing together, I think, helps the kids see that even into adulthood play and friendship continue. 

3.       Sunday the students and mentors worshipped together.  The goal of worshiping was for the mentors to offer their insights about what’s happening in worship.  What I noticed Sunday was that the point in the service where I saw the most interaction—I could even hear a slight murmur—came at communion.  Communion is typically a very quiet time during the service.  It can leave people with the sense that not much is going on.  What I witnessed Sunday is what I always hoped was true:  while the Lord’s Supper appears to be simple and quiet there is more going on below the surface than meets the eyes.  Thanks be to God. 

When you can't agree to disagree

            How do we stay in unity with the whole body of Christ when parts of the body won’t accept other parts of the body? The Apostle Paul said, “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”   So far as it depends on me?  I know a lot of people who think that’s pretty easy.  I never have.

            I grew up in a scholarly and conservative church.  I was taught to think, study, and discern, but I was also taught a pretty strict rules about conduct.  As I applied one set of principles—the ones about study, thought and discernment—I found tension with the other sets of principles.  I found that we tended to stress things that the Bible doesn’t stress.  My church emphasized things like music, appearance, and frequency at worship. The Bible stresses justice, ending violence, and caring for the poor.  We stressed walking the straight and narrow path.  The Bible stresses the expansive love and acceptance of God.  We could find the passages of scripture that spoke to our concerns.  We were biblical people after all.  But, when we look at the whole of scripture and ask what its prioritize are, it clearly places a much higher priority on concerns we ignore.  I love my home church.  I always have.  And I have always loved the more conservative side of Christianity that we call “evangelicalism.”  They are my people and they gave me faith.  I continue to love them even when I don’t know what to do with their emphases and priorities.

            Both Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, and World Vision, an extraordinary hunger relief agency, were in the news this week regarding things they said or did in relation to same-sex unions.  I won’t try to characterize what they did or said.  They should be allowed to express their views on their own terms.  The membership of the church I serve includes people who would agree and people who would disagree with what they said and did.  And I suspect I’m not the only one who feels a little caught in the middle.  I disagree with their specific stands on those specific issues but feel tremendous respect for their overall work and witness.  I imagine that many people who know how I feel wonder how they remain in unity with me when they disagree with me about decisions we have to make.  I wish it were as easy as saying that we can all agree to disagree as long as we disagree agreeably.  We can't always agree to disagree.  We participate in decision making of our communities, state and nation.  We influence companies and the policies.  Learning to keep the peace does not mean that keep silent.  But, we do have to find a way to speak what we believe is the right path in ways that still give space for people who disagree with us.  We must search for ways to form consensus without coercion and to engage conflict with hospitality.