First Sermon in "Messages from the Shack"

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Voice of Reason

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

Where I'm At

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign of the Age

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

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

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

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

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

Experimenting

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

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

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

Moral Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Research Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Rainey on "Good News"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pitts on Church Decline

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advent Songs and Christmas Carol rejoinder

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

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

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

Primary Care Physicians and Church

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

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

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

Adultery and Vice

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

Ross,

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Mangum
Pastor, First Christian Church
Arlington, Texas

Raising Teenagers

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

John McCain

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

Oops.

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

Teaching Speech

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

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

Sermon for Sunday, August 10th

God Amazed Through Gideon

Judges 6-8

August 10, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pineapple Express

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

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

Response to The Shack #3

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

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

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

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

Response to the Shack--Part 2

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

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

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

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

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