Showing posts with label Biblical Interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Interpretation. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Sunflower Seeds
Tweet
The following is a selection from the words I shared at Jon's services, both in Ohio and Virginia. It was a privilege and a challenge to be able to speak about a man so great as Jonathan Eades, and I pray my words honored Jon and honored God.
The following is a selection from the words I shared at Jon's services, both in Ohio and Virginia. It was a privilege and a challenge to be able to speak about a man so great as Jonathan Eades, and I pray my words honored Jon and honored God.
----
One time, as I sat down on his couch, he said, “Hey man,
have you heard of Ai Weiwei?” – Umm….no Jon, I have not heard of Ai Weiwei. “He’s
a Chinese artist.” “Oh right, of course, Ai Weiwei (I lied). What did he do
again?” “His latest exhibit is sunflower seeds. 100 million porcelain sunflower
flower seeds, hand painted by 1,600 Chinese workers, and spread across a room
the size of a football field. It’s meant to be a commentary on life.”
A sunflower seed. So simple, yet filled with so much
potential. Each sunflower seed in this exhibit was hand-painted, unique, and
different.
What significance could one seed have amongst millions?
What significance could one person have in his life?
Another time I was with Jon, he was volunteering at Saturday
night church at Grove City Nazarene. One of songs that evening contained the
lyrics, “We are on the winning side.” As we drove home that night, I asked Jon,
“What does that mean to you, Jon, to be on the winning side?” He thought for a
moment, and then told me something I will never forget.
He said, “Sure, I would love to be healed. I don’t want to
be in this wheelchair. But I know that God uses my disease to make me more like
Christ.”
Jon understood and embodied, at a very deep level, what Paul
wrote about in 2 Corinthians chapter 4 –
“We have this treasure
in jars of clay (our frail human bodies) to show that this all-surpassing power
is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed
on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted,
but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We
always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus
may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are
alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life
may also be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So
then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.”
What difference could one person make in his lifetime? One
person, who submits his life God, willingly, no matter what the cost.
Jesus used the imagery of a seed several times. He said, “If
you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can move mountains.” Jon had a
faith that was strong enough to move mountains. In fact, even though his
disease made him so weak, I don’t hesitate to say that he is the strongest man
I have ever known.
Jesus also said that unless the grain of wheat, the seed,
falls to the ground, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces
many seeds. Just as the seed dies, is buried, and then produces new life and
many new seeds, so we too, when we die in Christ, are resurrected to new life.
But Jesus challenges us in
this life to “Take up our cross and follow him,” and Paul writes, “Count
yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Jon was faced with
the realities of his imminent physical death every day, but he lived, alive in
Christ every day. He was willing to die to himself, to take on the attitude of
Christ, to be humble, to be patient, to be kind, to be a man of hope, faith and
perseverance. Through the continual death and deterioration of his body day by
day by day, new life – the life of Christ – was born, day by day, and many
seeds were sown.
Paul says later in 2 Corinthians 4, “We do not lose heart.
Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by
day.17 For our light and momentary troubles are
achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.”
What impact can one seed, one person, have upon our lives?
Jon impacted me greatly. Many times I thought about the
words he said, “God uses my disease to make me more like Christ.” As Kellye and
I sat with him in the hospital room, sat beside his bed while he rested,
offered him a drink of water from a straw, adjusted his pillow or his blankets,
and read the cards that friends and family sent to him, I thought about those
words again. And I realized that God was using Jon’s disease not only to make
Jon more like Christ, but to change me as well. Because when I was with Jon, I
was more like Christ. I was more caring. I was more patient. I was more kind. I
was more loving. Like Paul said, “Death is at work in us, but life is at work
in you.”
What does it mean to be on the winning side? Jon understood
that it meant more than being fully able-bodied, that it means more than having
all of your physical and material wants met. True victory comes from knowing
Christ. “To live is Christ, to die is gain.” Or as Paul concludes the section
of 2 Corinthians 4 from which I been reading, “18 We fix
our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is
temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
Of course we all know the beauty of the sunflower is its
single focus, from which the flower gets its name – a flower that is so focused
upon the sun, it follows it’s path throughout the course of the day, pointing
its petals in the direction of the rays of light. And if you remember nothing
else from this analogy of the sunflower, remember this – Jon’s life had a
single focus, Jesus Christ. The Psalmist writes, “Not to us Lord, but to your
name, be the glory.” And this was how Jon lived his life. Christ was his hope.
Christ was his strength. Christ was his reason for living, and Christ is the
reason he is alive today, praising God in heaven.
Jon “fixed his eyes not on the temporary, but on the eternal.”
What is temporary is this casket, is this death. But what is eternal, is life
with God, life that Jon is living right now. What is eternal are the seeds of
hope, perseverance and faith that Jon sowed into each and every one of our
lives.
We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen.
It is a mystery, this little seed. This little seed, that when
it dies, produces new life, and in turn produces many new seeds, that lead to
more new life.
It is a mystery to me, the way God works sometimes. A man
like Jonathan Eades, so weak, yet so strong. A man like Jon, who understood
that his wheelchair was not a burden, but a pathway to becoming like Christ.
It is a mystery to me, that this life that we live, full of
great adventures and travels to far off lands, always ends in death. And it
always hurts.
It is a mystery to me, the way that God loves us.
And today, as I reflect on his life, perhaps the greatest
mystery to me, is that I could be so lucky as to know Jonathan Eades.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
An Aim For My Life
Tweet
I have never read much by John Dominic Crossan, but his recent post on the Huffington Post Religion page was a solid read. His article is entitled: "With Liberty and Justice for All: Why the Bible Promotes Equality." It is an explanation of what the exactly is meant by the biblical concept of "divine justice" and from where that concept originated in ancient communities.
I have never read much by John Dominic Crossan, but his recent post on the Huffington Post Religion page was a solid read. His article is entitled: "With Liberty and Justice for All: Why the Bible Promotes Equality." It is an explanation of what the exactly is meant by the biblical concept of "divine justice" and from where that concept originated in ancient communities.
A few of the lines that stood out to me:
"The most serious and far-reaching misunderstanding of that biblical tradition is to interpret divine justice as retributive rather than distributive, as if it meant a proper punishment for some rather than a fair share for all."
"the biblical tradition does not proclaim "social justice" but "divine justice" -- which is something like social justice on steroids."
"But what if some of the children were starving and others were over-fed? What if some received food while others did not? What would you think of that householder -- then or now? That is the mega-model or mega-metaphor underneath the biblical tradition's understanding of its God. That is why the biblical God can demand of the powers-that-be, the rulers of this world, that they,
Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. (Psalm 82:3)
You can see from those parallel verses that "justice" is "the right" of the dispossessed. Distributive justice is not gift, charity, or handout in a world that belongs to us but the simple right of all in a world that belongs to God."
I been deeply struck by the justice themes in Scripture. Divine justice is close to God's heart, and may even be at the very center of the kingdom of God, the very thing that God is doing in the world around us. Crossan's words are helpful on a couple of accounts:
First, "Divine justice" doesn't have to mean punishment. Unfortunately, we often use "God's justice" as a battering stick over the heads of those we believe are "wrong" in whatever situation. We are so convinced that we are righteous and it is our job to dole out judgment and justice. But if justice is about sharing, as Crossan points out, then justice is my responsibility, but in a very different way.
Second, the goal of distributive justice is not a handout and is not to be equated with the negative American concept of "social welfare." I believe that our social welfare programs are failed attempts at trying to properly achieve distributive justice. It is a lofty goal! But not one that we should give up on. Rather, we must continue to search and find ways to "Give justice to the weak and the orphan, to maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute." This is God's command to all of us, and his will for the world that is his own. And he has made it the right of all his children, all people on earth.
So what does that mean for me? It means I'm continually more and more excited about being connected with the social work field. The first core value of the National Association of Social Workers is "Social Justice." That is a complex concept, and not all would define it as Crossan does here, but I see an important intersection. I believe that social workers are really trying to do what Crossan is talking about, trying to be good "householders" in the global "house."
I'm excited about my role in that profession, and for myself, I will continue to try to adopt and internalize the heart of God, one that desires and works for justice for all.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Inclusion
Tweet
I really like this guy's blog. He posts a lot, is honest, puts up funny and provocative cartoons. Check it out.
In a recent post entitled, "Change for Inclusion" he writes,
I've been trying to read the Bible lately with an eye open for messages about inclusion. For me, its a much more exciting faith to imagine transformation for the sake of including all people in the amazing kingdom of God.
But inclusion isn't casual and it isn't easy. At first it may seem like a "cop out" because you don't have to condemn anyone. But in practice, you are come face-to-face with the people who you are confident have messed up the message of God and are making all the wrong mistakes - but they are included too.
A message of inclusion challenges me to repent and change so I can be open and accepting of those who are fundamentally different than me. It's not easy at all. But it feels a lot like Jesus.
I really like this guy's blog. He posts a lot, is honest, puts up funny and provocative cartoons. Check it out.
In a recent post entitled, "Change for Inclusion" he writes,
"Inclusion is the heart of the biblical narrative. Exclusion is not...The spirit of Jesus challenges us to relax, change or even reject our theologies for the sake of inclusion."
I've been trying to read the Bible lately with an eye open for messages about inclusion. For me, its a much more exciting faith to imagine transformation for the sake of including all people in the amazing kingdom of God.
But inclusion isn't casual and it isn't easy. At first it may seem like a "cop out" because you don't have to condemn anyone. But in practice, you are come face-to-face with the people who you are confident have messed up the message of God and are making all the wrong mistakes - but they are included too.
A message of inclusion challenges me to repent and change so I can be open and accepting of those who are fundamentally different than me. It's not easy at all. But it feels a lot like Jesus.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Easter Emptiness
Tweet
I really struggle with being patient, especially when it comes to the big things in life: job decisions, raising a family, decisions about where to go and what to do. I want to know the answer now and I don't want to wait.
In the Christian tradition, we have one day specifically assigned for this period of waiting, of uncertainty. It is Holy Saturday - the day after the death of Jesus on Good Friday, but before the joy of Easter morning when we celebrate the resurrection.
But today I'm thinking that even the story of the resurrection was a challenge in waiting and uncertainty.
The empty tomb was an unexpected twist in the plot. A confusing, frustrating, disconcerting event for those who first experienced it. They were not immediately over-joyed, but rather they were upset, frightened and fearful.
It's agreed amongst biblical scholars that the book of Mark originally ended this way:
I really struggle with being patient, especially when it comes to the big things in life: job decisions, raising a family, decisions about where to go and what to do. I want to know the answer now and I don't want to wait.
In the Christian tradition, we have one day specifically assigned for this period of waiting, of uncertainty. It is Holy Saturday - the day after the death of Jesus on Good Friday, but before the joy of Easter morning when we celebrate the resurrection.
But today I'm thinking that even the story of the resurrection was a challenge in waiting and uncertainty.
The empty tomb was an unexpected twist in the plot. A confusing, frustrating, disconcerting event for those who first experienced it. They were not immediately over-joyed, but rather they were upset, frightened and fearful.
It's agreed amongst biblical scholars that the book of Mark originally ended this way:
16:4But when [the women] looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." [emphasis added]
In our contemporary bibles, we have more verses added (vs. 9-20) and they provide a comfortable resolution and peace to the end of the story. But initially, the closest followers of Jesus were confused, afraid, and completely lost - not just after Jesus' death but when they saw the empty tomb as well.
For myself and several of my close friends, the past few weeks have been a challenging time filled with unexpected events, questions, uncertainties and fears about the future. Many of us live this way every day - standing on the edge of a combination of decisions and changes just before us, all of which put us in a state of uncertainty about life. We think that this is a bad place and we try to get through it. We offer words of comfort, assurances of prayer and quips from Scripture about "God working everything out for the good."
Maybe this state of uncertainty and emptiness is the truest state of faith, and the place that God is always trying to get us to. Jesus experienced it just before he went to the cross, and probably through the full ordeal of the passion. And the followers of Jesus experienced it when they saw the tomb was empty. It was not what they were expecting. They were confused, challenged, afraid, and didn't know what was coming next.
That same feeling is very familiar to me. I have no idea what is coming next.
And that is how I am celebrating the empty tomb this Resurrection Sunday. Not as an assurance that "all is going to be OK," but as an embrace of the emptiness and uncertainty of a life followed close to Jesus.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
A New Kind of Way to Read the Bible
Tweet
I'm reading Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christianity," which deals with "10 Questions that are Transforming the [Christian] Faith." (See my introductory post here.) The first question is "What is the overarching story line of the Bible?" This first question has incredible implications, is very interesting, and I first began to think about it during a one-on-one conversation with McLaren himself. I'd recommend reading my friend Kyle's summary posts here and here.
However, the second question, "How should the Bible be understood?" - or rather McLaren's discussion of this topic - is what really got me going this week. He begins by demonstrating through that the Bible has been used to legitimize many of the worst human atrocities in history - not a tough case to make, really. He states, "Slavery, anti-Semitism, colonialism, genocide, chauvinism, homophobia, environmental plunder, the Inquisition, witch burning, apartheid - aren't those worth taking care to avoid, for God's sake?" However, the point is not that we made (many) mistakes in the past, because, of course, we have repented of these mistakes and are trying to use the Bible better now. Aren't we??
What McLaren incisively points out is that "very few Christians today...have given a second thought to - much less repented of - this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery..." and other horrendous crimes against humanity. In other words, it is not good enough to simplify feel bad that in the past Christians used the Bible to defend certain practices until enough people realized it was wrong; we have to stop using/reading the Bible in the same way.
He states, "Repentance means more than being sorry - it means being different."
What is the way Western Christians typically read the Bible? McLaren uses the analogy of a "legal constitution." For me, this was an "ah-ha" moment. He states,
The problem is that the Bible doesn't work this way. It is not internally consistent on many topics; it is easy to distort and abuse passages for the sake of the readers desire (whatever that may be at the moment); and the result is endless debates on interpretive approaches and the meanings of just about every passage in Scripture! When you step back and think about it, if the Bible is supposed to be read like a constitution, it isn't a very good one.
What then is this "new way" to read the Bible? McLaren's imagery is that of a "library of a culture and community." By this he means that it is a "carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek [the Judeo-Christian] God."
This is a challenging idea, and at first seems rather ambiguous. But as he explains it, McLaren makes several good points (which, coincidentally, relate to prior discussions with the COEC). First, there is tension, arguments and questions - it is a "group of people who say different things about the same things" (kind of the like the biblical authors?) The "library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God...into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed." The Bible was produced by and within a community, and it is meant to be read, heard and experienced by a community.
This approach has interesting implications for the idea of "inspiration." If the Bible is understood as a "constitution" then we would expect every word, the format, the construction and the entire product to be "inspired" in its entirety. This idea has challenged honest theologians for centuries. But if we understand the Bible as an "inspired" (or "authoritative") library, then there are different connotations. It includes key arguments, uniquely reveals God within itself and has the power to provide training, encouragement and guidance.
Clearly, the difference between reading the bible as a constitution and as a cultural library are vastly different, but also in my opinion, incredibly exciting. As McLaren states,
I'm reading Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christianity," which deals with "10 Questions that are Transforming the [Christian] Faith." (See my introductory post here.) The first question is "What is the overarching story line of the Bible?" This first question has incredible implications, is very interesting, and I first began to think about it during a one-on-one conversation with McLaren himself. I'd recommend reading my friend Kyle's summary posts here and here.
However, the second question, "How should the Bible be understood?" - or rather McLaren's discussion of this topic - is what really got me going this week. He begins by demonstrating through that the Bible has been used to legitimize many of the worst human atrocities in history - not a tough case to make, really. He states, "Slavery, anti-Semitism, colonialism, genocide, chauvinism, homophobia, environmental plunder, the Inquisition, witch burning, apartheid - aren't those worth taking care to avoid, for God's sake?" However, the point is not that we made (many) mistakes in the past, because, of course, we have repented of these mistakes and are trying to use the Bible better now. Aren't we??
What McLaren incisively points out is that "very few Christians today...have given a second thought to - much less repented of - this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery..." and other horrendous crimes against humanity. In other words, it is not good enough to simplify feel bad that in the past Christians used the Bible to defend certain practices until enough people realized it was wrong; we have to stop using/reading the Bible in the same way.
He states, "Repentance means more than being sorry - it means being different."
What is the way Western Christians typically read the Bible? McLaren uses the analogy of a "legal constitution." For me, this was an "ah-ha" moment. He states,
"It shouldn't surprise us that peopel raised in a constitutional era would tend to read the Bible in a constitutional way. Lawyers in the courtroom quote sections...to win their case, and we do the same with....chapters and verses...We seek to distinguish 'spirit' from 'letter' and argue the 'framers intent'...[as if it is] a universal, eternally binding law."To me, this is exactly what is done by "proof texting" - Christians throwing out verses that prove the point they are trying to make. We create or defend our beliefs by picking and choosing supporting verses. Especially in a Western, democratic, constitutional society, we have become subconsciously trained to think in these terms.
The problem is that the Bible doesn't work this way. It is not internally consistent on many topics; it is easy to distort and abuse passages for the sake of the readers desire (whatever that may be at the moment); and the result is endless debates on interpretive approaches and the meanings of just about every passage in Scripture! When you step back and think about it, if the Bible is supposed to be read like a constitution, it isn't a very good one.
What then is this "new way" to read the Bible? McLaren's imagery is that of a "library of a culture and community." By this he means that it is a "carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek [the Judeo-Christian] God."
This is a challenging idea, and at first seems rather ambiguous. But as he explains it, McLaren makes several good points (which, coincidentally, relate to prior discussions with the COEC). First, there is tension, arguments and questions - it is a "group of people who say different things about the same things" (kind of the like the biblical authors?) The "library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God...into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed." The Bible was produced by and within a community, and it is meant to be read, heard and experienced by a community.
This approach has interesting implications for the idea of "inspiration." If the Bible is understood as a "constitution" then we would expect every word, the format, the construction and the entire product to be "inspired" in its entirety. This idea has challenged honest theologians for centuries. But if we understand the Bible as an "inspired" (or "authoritative") library, then there are different connotations. It includes key arguments, uniquely reveals God within itself and has the power to provide training, encouragement and guidance.
Clearly, the difference between reading the bible as a constitution and as a cultural library are vastly different, but also in my opinion, incredibly exciting. As McLaren states,
"I anticipate that our quest for a new approach to the Bible will be come more attractive the more we practice it. As we transcend the wrangle and tangle of theo-legal suits and countersuits...we will humbly and joyfully add our voices to the age-old conversation with and about God, a vigorous and vibrant conversation rooted in and inspired by the fascinating array of voices in the Scriptures."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Ministry of Free Choice
Tweet
After several years of teaching in the Christian education system, a contraction became glaringly clear to me, namely that we (teachers, school administration, etc.) were requiring students to participate in distinctly Christian activities and behaviors. For example, students were required to take a Bible class every year, attend chapel once a week, and complete a certain number of community service hours.
Here is the contradiction: God never requires or "forces" any human being to do anything. At all. Ever.
The way God works is that he gives us many options - some good, some bad - along with the freedom to choose between these options. We live and operate within the choices and the consequences. Miraculously, God works alongside of our decisions and inhabits our lives. But there is something fundamentally contradictory when a person is required to do spiritual things such as worship, serve, or believe - all actions which are rooted in a personal choice and cannot be forced.
I tried to point this out during a meeting with my colleagues, suggesting that we should make some of these requirements optional, specifically the weekly chapel services. Granted, my "pitch" was less than refined, and my logic was coming from my typical "lets-do-something-crazy" side of my brain. Nevertheless, the suggestion of letting students choose whether or not they wanted to worship that week was quickly dismissed.
I remembered those discussions this week because I read a brilliant section of Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy. He is discussing Matthew 7:6 in which Jesus says, "Do give dogs sacred things to eat, nor try to get pigs to dine on pearls." Willard rejects the common interpretation that there are some people who are just "unworthy" of the sacred treasures, but rather he points out something fundamentally important that Jesus is explaining: Pigs cannot physically digest pearls, nor can dogs eat a Bible. So it is a waste to "force" these sacred things upon the animal who has no benefit from them. Willard states,
Ministry is not about forcing, manipulating, or shoving the "pearls" of Christianity down the throats of those who are unwilling and can't benefit from them anyway. My role in ministry is to be there, and let the individual make the choice on their own.
Kind of like how God is here now, and lets us choose. Every day.
After several years of teaching in the Christian education system, a contraction became glaringly clear to me, namely that we (teachers, school administration, etc.) were requiring students to participate in distinctly Christian activities and behaviors. For example, students were required to take a Bible class every year, attend chapel once a week, and complete a certain number of community service hours.
Here is the contradiction: God never requires or "forces" any human being to do anything. At all. Ever.
The way God works is that he gives us many options - some good, some bad - along with the freedom to choose between these options. We live and operate within the choices and the consequences. Miraculously, God works alongside of our decisions and inhabits our lives. But there is something fundamentally contradictory when a person is required to do spiritual things such as worship, serve, or believe - all actions which are rooted in a personal choice and cannot be forced.
I tried to point this out during a meeting with my colleagues, suggesting that we should make some of these requirements optional, specifically the weekly chapel services. Granted, my "pitch" was less than refined, and my logic was coming from my typical "lets-do-something-crazy" side of my brain. Nevertheless, the suggestion of letting students choose whether or not they wanted to worship that week was quickly dismissed.
I remembered those discussions this week because I read a brilliant section of Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy. He is discussing Matthew 7:6 in which Jesus says, "Do give dogs sacred things to eat, nor try to get pigs to dine on pearls." Willard rejects the common interpretation that there are some people who are just "unworthy" of the sacred treasures, but rather he points out something fundamentally important that Jesus is explaining: Pigs cannot physically digest pearls, nor can dogs eat a Bible. So it is a waste to "force" these sacred things upon the animal who has no benefit from them. Willard states,
"The point is not the waste of the 'pearl' but that the person given the pearl is not helped...Our children or others do not know what else to do with us pearl pushers. And even though they love us...they simply cannot take any more of our 'pushy irrelevance' as they see it, or possibly our stubborn blindness.I remember I used to get really frustrated when students would not respond in chapel. I would just want to "shake them out of it" and so my preaching would deteriorate to blaming and manipulation. After a few years of close ministry to individual students though, I started to take a more hands-off approach. I realized that it wasn't my job to save them, and I didn't really care if they "engaged" or not - or more accurately, if they made an outward show of their spiritual connection in that moment (who can know what is happening in a person's heart or head at any given time?) I slowly came to understand that my responsibility was simply to always be an available resource, whether that meant leading worship, teaching from the Bible, or just being an open ear and offering some encouragement or simple advice.
"What we are actually doing with our proper condemnations and our wonderful solutions, more often than not, is taking others out of their own responsibility and out of God's hands and trying to bring them under our control...God has paid an awful price to arrange for human self-determination. He obviously places great value on it. It is, after all, the only way he can get the kind of personal beings he desires for his eternal purposes."
Ministry is not about forcing, manipulating, or shoving the "pearls" of Christianity down the throats of those who are unwilling and can't benefit from them anyway. My role in ministry is to be there, and let the individual make the choice on their own.
Kind of like how God is here now, and lets us choose. Every day.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Highlights from 1 Timothy
Tweet
I read through the first epistle to Timothy this morning, and a few lines caught my attention. Here they are:
I read through the first epistle to Timothy this morning, and a few lines caught my attention. Here they are:
"This is a trustworthy saying: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst."
"God's unlimited patience"
"Hold onto the deep truth of the faith"
"We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe"
"Do not neglect your gift"
"Pursue gentleness - fight the good fight of the faith."
"God...who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
God's Hidden Agenda
Tweet
"I just don't see God working anywhere in my life or in the world around me."
Many people express this sentiment in frustration, disappointment and wonder. "Where is God?" could easily be in the top 10 of all questions asked.
Perhaps God is working under the surface, behind the scenes, in a covert operation of grace. And if we are willing to take a little bit deeper breath, listen a tad more attentively, we sense his presence in an overwhelming way.
God isn't concerned with getting all the credit, but he is willing to take all the blame. He is more concerned with people finding true life, love and peace in the world. And that may not be through the expected channels normally associated with God. It may be in a hidden, subtle, and even imperceptible manner. But nevertheless, it is God working in a profound way.
The aim of contemplation is to "awake" to God's ever-present Presence. He is here. He is working. Perhaps this is why Paul so adamantly commands us to "Rejoice in the Lord," because when we talk with each other about the cool things that are happening, our vision is expanded, and we begin to peel back the shroud, realizing that God is at work - he always has been, and we can expect him to continue working, transforming, redeeming the world.
Achieving his hidden agenda - and one day we will all rejoice.
"I just don't see God working anywhere in my life or in the world around me."
Many people express this sentiment in frustration, disappointment and wonder. "Where is God?" could easily be in the top 10 of all questions asked.
Perhaps God is working under the surface, behind the scenes, in a covert operation of grace. And if we are willing to take a little bit deeper breath, listen a tad more attentively, we sense his presence in an overwhelming way.
God isn't concerned with getting all the credit, but he is willing to take all the blame. He is more concerned with people finding true life, love and peace in the world. And that may not be through the expected channels normally associated with God. It may be in a hidden, subtle, and even imperceptible manner. But nevertheless, it is God working in a profound way.
The aim of contemplation is to "awake" to God's ever-present Presence. He is here. He is working. Perhaps this is why Paul so adamantly commands us to "Rejoice in the Lord," because when we talk with each other about the cool things that are happening, our vision is expanded, and we begin to peel back the shroud, realizing that God is at work - he always has been, and we can expect him to continue working, transforming, redeeming the world.
Achieving his hidden agenda - and one day we will all rejoice.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Important Words on Homosexuality
Tweet
I greatly respect Brian McLaren, not just as an emergent author, but a deeply committed follower of Jesus. He takes the words of Scripture seriously, so serious that he is willing to find a new way to be a Christian that is more true to the words and themes of Scripture.
Today, there is a synchro-blog happening on Bridging the Gap, which is a great resource for articles and up-to-date conversations regarding sexuality and Christianity. Brian's post is here, and his conclusion is powerful and right on, and it's fully based on a powerful story from Scripture.
"Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith...But as we all know, as the years went on, both issues once again became obstacles. It's only in my lifetime that we have truly begun to racism behind us...Now, it's time for us to remove the second obstacle. Not in spite of the Bible, but because of it."
If his words are surprising to you, read his full post here - it's not too long, and it's full of Scripture.
Today, there is a synchro-blog happening on Bridging the Gap, which is a great resource for articles and up-to-date conversations regarding sexuality and Christianity. Brian's post is here, and his conclusion is powerful and right on, and it's fully based on a powerful story from Scripture.
"Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith...But as we all know, as the years went on, both issues once again became obstacles. It's only in my lifetime that we have truly begun to racism behind us...Now, it's time for us to remove the second obstacle. Not in spite of the Bible, but because of it."
If his words are surprising to you, read his full post here - it's not too long, and it's full of Scripture.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Unmistakable Call
Tweet
One of the first theological books that really struck me was Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship." I was looking back through it this morning, preparing to talk with my freshmen about simplicity and the story of the rich young man. Several quotes stood out to me:
"Here is the sum of the commandments - to live in fellowship with Christ. This Christ now confronts the young man with his call. He can no longer escape into the unreal world of his moral difficulties. The commandment is plain and straightforward: 'Follow me.'"
"We must not do violence to the Scriptures by interpreting them in terms of abstract principle, even if that principle be a doctrine of grace. Otherwise we shall end up in legalism."
I am certainly guilty of over-analyzing, and often I feel that I know what I should do (or what God is calling me to do), but I think about what might be the consequences, the implications, etc. And so I stay within my easy, typical and "safe" routines.
"The elimination of single-minded obedience on principle is but another instance of the perversion of the costly grace of the call of Jesus into the cheap grace of self-justification. By this means a false law is set up which deafens men to the concrete call of Christ. This false law is the law of the world, of which the law of grace is at once the complement and the antithesis."
I understand Bonhoeffer to be talking about the Christian mentality that says, "I trust in God to take care of it, so I won't do anything." Or, "It seems pretty clear what God is saying here, but that would mean I would have to change my whole life, and that doesn't make sense. God wouldn't ask me to do that." It is reminding me a lot of our discussion with the cohort this past week regarding some words from Dr. Brueggeman. One phrase specifically he said was that we need a "raw, dramatic transaction" with Scripture, "not cleaned up or protected by our critical thought." The reality is that when we think we are being faithful to Scripture, we are actually putting layers and layers of our rationalizations over top of the in-breaking truth.
So I'm returning again to my question, "How do I more faithfully live what I believe to be true?"
"Here is the sum of the commandments - to live in fellowship with Christ. This Christ now confronts the young man with his call. He can no longer escape into the unreal world of his moral difficulties. The commandment is plain and straightforward: 'Follow me.'"
"We must not do violence to the Scriptures by interpreting them in terms of abstract principle, even if that principle be a doctrine of grace. Otherwise we shall end up in legalism."
I am certainly guilty of over-analyzing, and often I feel that I know what I should do (or what God is calling me to do), but I think about what might be the consequences, the implications, etc. And so I stay within my easy, typical and "safe" routines.
"The elimination of single-minded obedience on principle is but another instance of the perversion of the costly grace of the call of Jesus into the cheap grace of self-justification. By this means a false law is set up which deafens men to the concrete call of Christ. This false law is the law of the world, of which the law of grace is at once the complement and the antithesis."
I understand Bonhoeffer to be talking about the Christian mentality that says, "I trust in God to take care of it, so I won't do anything." Or, "It seems pretty clear what God is saying here, but that would mean I would have to change my whole life, and that doesn't make sense. God wouldn't ask me to do that." It is reminding me a lot of our discussion with the cohort this past week regarding some words from Dr. Brueggeman. One phrase specifically he said was that we need a "raw, dramatic transaction" with Scripture, "not cleaned up or protected by our critical thought." The reality is that when we think we are being faithful to Scripture, we are actually putting layers and layers of our rationalizations over top of the in-breaking truth.
So I'm returning again to my question, "How do I more faithfully live what I believe to be true?"
Friday, March 20, 2009
"Avoid the appearance of evil"
Tweet
This post discusses 1 Thess. 5:22, an oft quoted phrase especially in Christian schools. The staff is required to sign a code of conduct stating we will not partake in any use of alcohol or tobacco, and not even gossip! Teachers love to remind students they should not even talk about things like sex, drinking or smoking, just because it might look like you are doing it. I think this is even the rational behind choosing to expel (or "remove") pregnant students from Christian schools.
Great lines from the post: "We have tricked ourselves into thinking that if we fit into a rather comfortable little understanding of "normal" Christian practices then we are good to go. Someone came up with this list, I'm guessing some time in the 20th century. Don't drink, don't chew, don't go with girls that do. And it stuck. Why?
Because it is incredibly easy. For most, anyway. For those who struggle with the particular sins we have decided are paramount (even if they are really good at avoiding the other sins like greed, jealousy, gluttony, wrath, etc.), we simply exclude them from our practices and deny even the sincerity of their faith"
Right on - The author's point is not that we shouldn't care about about the the standard Christian taboos, but rather recognize that there are a lot of, perhaps more serious, issues we should be aware of - exploiting children; mindless consumption; gluttony.
I agree with what she is saying, but I've also wondered about how what really is "evil" or, the opposite, what "good" should look like. If we take the example Jesus, it's associating very closely with "sinners," the "unclean," the outcasts and the "evil."
I agree that the ideal of being "beyond reproach" is a good one, but I would argue that we have to remember two things: 1) Like the above post, this is much more comprehensive than we like to think, and goes beyond just the sins that are easy for us to avoid. And 2) such an ideal does not mean we dissassociate from or expel those who may be "in sin" - rather, it should be just the opposite - finding the good, the divine, in everyone.
Great lines from the post: "We have tricked ourselves into thinking that if we fit into a rather comfortable little understanding of "normal" Christian practices then we are good to go. Someone came up with this list, I'm guessing some time in the 20th century. Don't drink, don't chew, don't go with girls that do. And it stuck. Why?
Because it is incredibly easy. For most, anyway. For those who struggle with the particular sins we have decided are paramount (even if they are really good at avoiding the other sins like greed, jealousy, gluttony, wrath, etc.), we simply exclude them from our practices and deny even the sincerity of their faith"
Right on - The author's point is not that we shouldn't care about about the the standard Christian taboos, but rather recognize that there are a lot of, perhaps more serious, issues we should be aware of - exploiting children; mindless consumption; gluttony.
I agree with what she is saying, but I've also wondered about how what really is "evil" or, the opposite, what "good" should look like. If we take the example Jesus, it's associating very closely with "sinners," the "unclean," the outcasts and the "evil."
I agree that the ideal of being "beyond reproach" is a good one, but I would argue that we have to remember two things: 1) Like the above post, this is much more comprehensive than we like to think, and goes beyond just the sins that are easy for us to avoid. And 2) such an ideal does not mean we dissassociate from or expel those who may be "in sin" - rather, it should be just the opposite - finding the good, the divine, in everyone.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Jesus-ism
Tweet
That term - "Jesus-ism" - is taken from a brilliant writer I just discovered, Jenell Paris, and her wonderful series of blogposts on "Things Evangelicalism Likes." #2 was "the word "Jesus" and she points out that,
"Jesus is a historical person whose actions and sayings should be cited often. Fair enough. But in addition, it seems that evangelicalism likes Jesus used as a blank screen onto which we project our notions of perfection, completion, beauty and the like. Evangelicalism may think it lifts up Jesus to use him as a master metaphor, but I’m not so sure. I’d call it Jesus-ism, turning the person of Jesus into an ideology."
I've thought about this for a few days now, and really think she is on to something. I find myself theologizing and philosophizing, and when I think something is right or true or beautiful, I automatically associate it with Jesus. In sermons, classrooms, books, and music videos, Jesus is the ideal of everything.
On the one hand, I don't think that is bad or even necessarily wrong. But the danger is that we have forgotten that Jesus was (and is) a real person. We might forget what his real words were, and instead insert some cute phrases tha we read on church signs as we drove to work. Just because it makes you feel good and it rhymes doesn't mean it's right or that Jesus said it. One of my favorite examples is the popular phrase that is attributed to Jesus to be "in the world but not of the world." It's a cute turn of prepositions in the english language, but I can't find it in the Bible anywhere (perhaps I just missed it, but the closest I can find is John 17 when Jesus prays for his disciples).
I would agree with Ms. Paris - it is common, and dangerously easy, for us to project our best conception of truth and reality onto an image of Jesus that then becomes an ideology of our own creation, and not the 1st century rabbi who subverted the common religious ideologies of his day.
That term - "Jesus-ism" - is taken from a brilliant writer I just discovered, Jenell Paris, and her wonderful series of blogposts on "Things Evangelicalism Likes." #2 was "the word "Jesus" and she points out that,
"Jesus is a historical person whose actions and sayings should be cited often. Fair enough. But in addition, it seems that evangelicalism likes Jesus used as a blank screen onto which we project our notions of perfection, completion, beauty and the like. Evangelicalism may think it lifts up Jesus to use him as a master metaphor, but I’m not so sure. I’d call it Jesus-ism, turning the person of Jesus into an ideology."
I've thought about this for a few days now, and really think she is on to something. I find myself theologizing and philosophizing, and when I think something is right or true or beautiful, I automatically associate it with Jesus. In sermons, classrooms, books, and music videos, Jesus is the ideal of everything.
On the one hand, I don't think that is bad or even necessarily wrong. But the danger is that we have forgotten that Jesus was (and is) a real person. We might forget what his real words were, and instead insert some cute phrases tha we read on church signs as we drove to work. Just because it makes you feel good and it rhymes doesn't mean it's right or that Jesus said it. One of my favorite examples is the popular phrase that is attributed to Jesus to be "in the world but not of the world." It's a cute turn of prepositions in the english language, but I can't find it in the Bible anywhere (perhaps I just missed it, but the closest I can find is John 17 when Jesus prays for his disciples).
I would agree with Ms. Paris - it is common, and dangerously easy, for us to project our best conception of truth and reality onto an image of Jesus that then becomes an ideology of our own creation, and not the 1st century rabbi who subverted the common religious ideologies of his day.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Affirmation and Denial
Tweet
More from Pete Rollins....please come out tomorrow for the conversation
"I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the
feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny
the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the
downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.
However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and
far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are
forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had
their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears
left to shed."
This is such a profound twist on affirmation and denial - we emphasize in evangelical circles that we must "believe" and "have faith," but do we really affirm the resurrection? Or do we deny it every day? I can't do much more right now than retreat into my own contemplative pondering of my own denial of the resurrection....
How terrible will that day be when we wake up, thinking we have lived a life of faith, of trust, of so-call truth - only to find that we were self-deceived, inebriated, fools of the worst kind...
How will I answer the questions then? What useless apologies will I offer? And how much guilt does it take before I actually change....
Friday, January 30, 2009
Rethinking interpretation...
Tweet
...and Truth
I'm reading a short e-book on my iPod touch whenever I find myself sitting around (yes, I read in the bathroom) and one of the main points of the book is that if we read Scripture with a different emphasis, the meaning can totally change. A short quote:
...and Truth
I'm reading a short e-book on my iPod touch whenever I find myself sitting around (yes, I read in the bathroom) and one of the main points of the book is that if we read Scripture with a different emphasis, the meaning can totally change. A short quote:
"It’s even more than that. The truths revealed in and through Scripture and not independent objects. They’re not artifacts outside Plato’s cave waiting for us to climb to the surface. Instead, the truths emerge as we tell the story. Truth is narratively experienced and always contextual." (pg. 11)The author has started getting into some stuff about "Transmillenialism" (which I haven't heard of, and am a little suspicious of right now) but the above idea corresponds with a very interesting post from the pastor of Disciples Fellowship in Alabama. He states,
"For many fidelity to scripture is not being true to what it actually says, but being true to an interpretation of what we were taught it says. To take the scriptures seriously for what they say, and to see another very reasonable way of understanding them, even in a small matter like how the disciples interacted with Jesus, then sounds like one is not being faithful to the teaching of scripture.So what story, what interpretation, what preconceived image of who God/Jesus/Spirit/life is am I holding onto in my own head/heart/mind/body? What truth do I need to betray in order to be more faithful to the Truth?
Unfortunately Christian history is littered with stories of how people came to hold as inspired particular interpretations, disallowed other plausible perspectives, and so eliminated the type of discussion that can actually lead to growth. Holding to interpretations is not the same as holding to scripture as inspired, while acknowledging the possibilities that the text itself allows."
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Advent [8]: Xmas in Guat
Tweet
We worshiped at La Fraternidad Christiana de Guatemala this morning, which apparently is a physically larger church than any in the United States (was built to match the dimensions in of the biblical ark - see pics to the right). Also interesting, the church was built debt free. Lots to think about there.....but that's not what really caught me this morning.
I love (LOVE) Spanish worship music. Something about the lyrics, the beat, the singing (even though I'm not always sure what is being said), it gets me moving and excited more than the American songs I'm used to. I couldn't help but laugh this morning when "Let Everything That Has Breath" was the first song. But it loosened me up, and after a few more, the singing took a more serious tone, and we sang "Shout to the Lord," which according to several statistics I've read was at one time the most widely sung Christian song on any given Sunday. In other words, all across the world, millions of Christians sing "Shout to the Lord" every week. For me, it cut straight to the center of God's good news and reminded me of several verses I had read that morning:
"Whoever comes to me I will never drive away." "I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life." "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:37, 40, 51). "After this I looked and there bfore me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9)
The reason these verses were in the forefront of my mind was because of their distinctly inclusive nature. This word - inclusivism - is one that I have wrestled with for a few years, mainly because it seems to the central claim of fundamental Christianity, namely that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell. I'm not trying to lay out a theology for the plurality of religions, but what I realized today was that for much of my life I had bought into the despair of Christianity, the despair that says that the majority of the world is going to hell, except us good Christians. Being in Guatemala, singing a well-known song (in Spanish), and worshiping with thousands of Guatemalans, reminded me that God's view is so much bigger than mine. He has a global perspective of salvation, of life. Thank God.
So I refuse to despair, and instead I am hopeful. I choose to believe Jesus' words that anyone who comes to him will receive eternal life. I choose to imagine a multitude so big I (and no one) could count, and then I add one more person - and I picture them praising God because he's great. I believe that Jesus wants to save people, not to damn them.
I also realized that i typically can only see religion from my perspective, particularly what I understand to be right and/or wrong at that particular point in my life. But worshiping with so many others who were so different from me, people I never think of on a typical Sunday, singing a song that millions of Christians sing every week, I realized that even Guatemala City with a church the size of the ARK for cyring out loud, even that is only one small city across this grand globe that God is bringing into his heart, day by day. I realized that only God himself knows the full perspective and number, and that number is probably way (WAY!) bigger than I could ever imagine.
So I'm thankful. I'm hopeful. I'm excited to celebrate the coming of the little baby Jesus, that came into the world in order to give up his life, for the entire world. Now that's one verse that I'll read literally :)
We worshiped at La Fraternidad Christiana de Guatemala this morning, which apparently is a physically larger church than any in the United States (was built to match the dimensions in of the biblical ark - see pics to the right). Also interesting, the church was built debt free. Lots to think about there.....but that's not what really caught me this morning.I love (LOVE) Spanish worship music. Something about the lyrics, the beat, the singing (even though I'm not always sure what is being said), it gets me moving and excited more than the American songs I'm used to. I couldn't help but laugh this morning when "Let Everything That Has Breath" was the first song. But it loosened me up, and after a few more, the singing took a more serious tone, and we sang "Shout to the Lord," which according to several statistics I've read was at one time the most widely sung Christian song on any given Sunday. In other words, all across the world, millions of Christians sing "Shout to the Lord" every week. For me, it cut straight to the center of God's good news and reminded me of several verses I had read that morning:
"Whoever comes to me I will never drive away." "I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life." "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:37, 40, 51). "After this I looked and there bfore me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9)
The reason these verses were in the forefront of my mind was because of their distinctly inclusive nature. This word - inclusivism - is one that I have wrestled with for a few years, mainly because it seems to the central claim of fundamental Christianity, namely that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell. I'm not trying to lay out a theology for the plurality of religions, but what I realized today was that for much of my life I had bought into the despair of Christianity, the despair that says that the majority of the world is going to hell, except us good Christians. Being in Guatemala, singing a well-known song (in Spanish), and worshiping with thousands of Guatemalans, reminded me that God's view is so much bigger than mine. He has a global perspective of salvation, of life. Thank God.
So I refuse to despair, and instead I am hopeful. I choose to believe Jesus' words that anyone who comes to him will receive eternal life. I choose to imagine a multitude so big I (and no one) could count, and then I add one more person - and I picture them praising God because he's great. I believe that Jesus wants to save people, not to damn them.
I also realized that i typically can only see religion from my perspective, particularly what I understand to be right and/or wrong at that particular point in my life. But worshiping with so many others who were so different from me, people I never think of on a typical Sunday, singing a song that millions of Christians sing every week, I realized that even Guatemala City with a church the size of the ARK for cyring out loud, even that is only one small city across this grand globe that God is bringing into his heart, day by day. I realized that only God himself knows the full perspective and number, and that number is probably way (WAY!) bigger than I could ever imagine.
So I'm thankful. I'm hopeful. I'm excited to celebrate the coming of the little baby Jesus, that came into the world in order to give up his life, for the entire world. Now that's one verse that I'll read literally :)
Advent [7]: Challenges
Tweet
I woke up early this morning because I forgot that we changed time zones - so I thought it was 7:30, but it was 6:30. So I spent a bit more time than I usually have reading and thinking, and I found myself in the book of John, reading about Jesus feeding the 5,000, walking on water, and then talking about eating his flesh and blood. In these stories, it seemed to me like Jesus was asking the disciples tough questions, putting them in difficult situations even though he knew the outcome. And then he starts laying down these ridiculously confusing theological ideas - like some form of Judeo-cannibalism.
It made me think about the young, newly (mysteriously) pregnant Mary - the mother of Jesus. And her betrothed, Joseph. They had their life planned; they knew where they were going and when, and then God put them in an intentionally difficult position. It's sort of like "Life Interrupted" bible-style. And it's sort of one of those things that happens to anyone whose seeking God. We don't find some superficial, cupcakes and butterflies happiness that is free from challenges. But instead, our very search for God is a challenge that never ceases. We can not conquer God, but find ourselves being conquered and brought more and more into his life.
I'm trying to be open to these challenges - to be willing to be put in difficult circumstances, and willing to explore (very) difficult theologies. Maybe Jesus doesn't fit very well on a flannel graph, and maybe the story of salvation really isn't told best for children. I don't think that means that Jesus doesn't still "love the little children," but perhaps his love is the type of love that is not satisfied with me as I am. Like I regularly tell my students, it is my job to make them into better, smarter people.
I guess that's sort of God's job, his work, his goal: He challenges me to be better - and as much as I don't like it, I know it's right.
I woke up early this morning because I forgot that we changed time zones - so I thought it was 7:30, but it was 6:30. So I spent a bit more time than I usually have reading and thinking, and I found myself in the book of John, reading about Jesus feeding the 5,000, walking on water, and then talking about eating his flesh and blood. In these stories, it seemed to me like Jesus was asking the disciples tough questions, putting them in difficult situations even though he knew the outcome. And then he starts laying down these ridiculously confusing theological ideas - like some form of Judeo-cannibalism.
It made me think about the young, newly (mysteriously) pregnant Mary - the mother of Jesus. And her betrothed, Joseph. They had their life planned; they knew where they were going and when, and then God put them in an intentionally difficult position. It's sort of like "Life Interrupted" bible-style. And it's sort of one of those things that happens to anyone whose seeking God. We don't find some superficial, cupcakes and butterflies happiness that is free from challenges. But instead, our very search for God is a challenge that never ceases. We can not conquer God, but find ourselves being conquered and brought more and more into his life.
I'm trying to be open to these challenges - to be willing to be put in difficult circumstances, and willing to explore (very) difficult theologies. Maybe Jesus doesn't fit very well on a flannel graph, and maybe the story of salvation really isn't told best for children. I don't think that means that Jesus doesn't still "love the little children," but perhaps his love is the type of love that is not satisfied with me as I am. Like I regularly tell my students, it is my job to make them into better, smarter people.
I guess that's sort of God's job, his work, his goal: He challenges me to be better - and as much as I don't like it, I know it's right.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reflections on Conflict, Reconciliation, and Determination
Tweet
In these last few days following the much-anticipated presidential election, the Christian community has been charged with differing responses to the outcome. Some people are hopeful, seeing the opportunity for real changes and recognizing the significance of the first African-American President believe that even greater things are just around the corner. Others are disappointed and concerned, wondering what a liberal Democrat will do in political power. I have heard questions from students about abortion, race, gay marriage, health care, and more.
In talking to students and adults about these issues and questions, I have found that there are very real differences between some of us. And sometimes these differences cause hurt and conflict between us. And so I've been thinking a lot about the conflicts that have come up as a result of this election, and I've come to two conclusions:
1) Being a Christian is - more than anything else - about resolving conflict. On a spiritual level, we resolve our conflict with God and are reconciled. On a personal level, I must do all I can to resolve my conflicts with people I disagree with or whom I have hurt in some way. The implication of Jesus' death on the cross, bringing me back to God through forgiveness, is that I have to be brought back to peace with my fellow human beings. For me, being a Christian means that my relationships with other people should mirror my relationship with God as much as possible - and so I must work to reconcile, forgive, and heal.
2) Standing firm in what you believe to be true is very difficult. It is always easier to run away from conflict. But when a person comes to the conviction that something is true and right, and they take a real stand, the opposition and the conflict will be shortcoming. A very big part of me would rather not have conflicts with other people at all. It would be much easier to go with the flow and not make a big deal out of it. But then I would not be being true to myself, to what I believe and see to be true in the world around me. And so I have to be willing, and expect, conflict - even though I don't like it and my goal is always to be reconciled to those around me.
I can't really say that I have many "heroes" outside of the people in my family who have dramatically impacted my life. But in the last few weeks, I found myself inspired by Barack Obama. I see him as a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is true and what he believes is possible, regardless of those who oppose him and regardless of the conflict and the attacks. Below are some selections from his keynote address in June 2006, entitled "Call to Renewal" that I find particularly inspiring.
I don't agree with all of Barack Obama's policies, and I don't know how he will be as president. But I know from my own life that it is hard to stand firm in your beliefs and convictions. And I see in Barack Obama someone who shares many of the same convictions I hold at the core of my being, and someone who is dedicating his life to seeing his hopes and visions become a reality. My hope is that I can live with the same type of unwavering dedication.
In talking to students and adults about these issues and questions, I have found that there are very real differences between some of us. And sometimes these differences cause hurt and conflict between us. And so I've been thinking a lot about the conflicts that have come up as a result of this election, and I've come to two conclusions:
1) Being a Christian is - more than anything else - about resolving conflict. On a spiritual level, we resolve our conflict with God and are reconciled. On a personal level, I must do all I can to resolve my conflicts with people I disagree with or whom I have hurt in some way. The implication of Jesus' death on the cross, bringing me back to God through forgiveness, is that I have to be brought back to peace with my fellow human beings. For me, being a Christian means that my relationships with other people should mirror my relationship with God as much as possible - and so I must work to reconcile, forgive, and heal.
2) Standing firm in what you believe to be true is very difficult. It is always easier to run away from conflict. But when a person comes to the conviction that something is true and right, and they take a real stand, the opposition and the conflict will be shortcoming. A very big part of me would rather not have conflicts with other people at all. It would be much easier to go with the flow and not make a big deal out of it. But then I would not be being true to myself, to what I believe and see to be true in the world around me. And so I have to be willing, and expect, conflict - even though I don't like it and my goal is always to be reconciled to those around me.
I can't really say that I have many "heroes" outside of the people in my family who have dramatically impacted my life. But in the last few weeks, I found myself inspired by Barack Obama. I see him as a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is true and what he believes is possible, regardless of those who oppose him and regardless of the conflict and the attacks. Below are some selections from his keynote address in June 2006, entitled "Call to Renewal" that I find particularly inspiring.
I don't agree with all of Barack Obama's policies, and I don't know how he will be as president. But I know from my own life that it is hard to stand firm in your beliefs and convictions. And I see in Barack Obama someone who shares many of the same convictions I hold at the core of my being, and someone who is dedicating his life to seeing his hopes and visions become a reality. My hope is that I can live with the same type of unwavering dedication.
"Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.
You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey....
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing...
...I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you."
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The day after Nov. 4th, 2008...
Tweet
So much to think (and write) about today! I didn't stay up to watch Obama's acceptance speech, but from what I read online, these are the points I resonate with:
So I would describe myself today, along with many others, as hopeful, excited, and eager to change begin to occur in our country. However, today I certainly encountered some of the "cynicism" that Obama mentioned as well. 47% or so of the nation still voted for McCain, and a good portion of those strongly opposed Obama, especially amongst evangelicals. This TIME article is sad to me, especially when it mentions that "there are unquestionably theological and racial reasons for the continued alignment of many white evangelicals with the GOP."
Today, the atmosphere in the small Christian school where I teach was tense. Students said they were moving to Canada, that America was going down, that this was the beginning of the end. In class, I fielded quesitons about the antichrist, gay marriage, race and other political and theological issues. One email sent by a church pastor said that "it seems God has allowed Barack Obama to become president."
For my part, I told students that I was very hopeful, that I felt that as a nation we were in an exciting time. I reminded them that the antichrist has very little to do with American politics, that both Republicans and Democrats have a similar position regarding gay marriage, and that both Christian Democrats and Christian Republicans want to see the number of abortions reduced but have differing opinions about how to reach that goal.
My hope is that Barack Obama is as much a man of action as he is of rhetoric and that the "new spirit of patriotism" will begin to be felt, even amongst evangelicals.
So much to think (and write) about today! I didn't stay up to watch Obama's acceptance speech, but from what I read online, these are the points I resonate with:
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.I appreciate that Barack Obama doesn't just make political promises, but reminds us that our country is made up of many citizens, all making daily and moment-by-moment choices that move our country in one direction or another. I like that he is a person who recognizes American is an international focal point, and so our actions, our words and our politics will shape the future not only of the U.S.A., but of the world. I think that the phrase "out of many, we are one" applies not only to Americans, but to all humans.It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other...
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
This is our moment.
This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
So I would describe myself today, along with many others, as hopeful, excited, and eager to change begin to occur in our country. However, today I certainly encountered some of the "cynicism" that Obama mentioned as well. 47% or so of the nation still voted for McCain, and a good portion of those strongly opposed Obama, especially amongst evangelicals. This TIME article is sad to me, especially when it mentions that "there are unquestionably theological and racial reasons for the continued alignment of many white evangelicals with the GOP."
Today, the atmosphere in the small Christian school where I teach was tense. Students said they were moving to Canada, that America was going down, that this was the beginning of the end. In class, I fielded quesitons about the antichrist, gay marriage, race and other political and theological issues. One email sent by a church pastor said that "it seems God has allowed Barack Obama to become president."
For my part, I told students that I was very hopeful, that I felt that as a nation we were in an exciting time. I reminded them that the antichrist has very little to do with American politics, that both Republicans and Democrats have a similar position regarding gay marriage, and that both Christian Democrats and Christian Republicans want to see the number of abortions reduced but have differing opinions about how to reach that goal.
My hope is that Barack Obama is as much a man of action as he is of rhetoric and that the "new spirit of patriotism" will begin to be felt, even amongst evangelicals.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A line of thinking I don't understand...
Tweet
The recent political buzzword is socialism *gasp* - I can't figure out the line of reasoning (or lack thereof) that I've heard thrown around lately:
Barack Obama plans to tax higher income citizens more than lower income - we've all heard it: Everyone making less than $250,000 would get a tax break, and businesses and individuals above that line would make up the difference, thereby "spreading the wealth." McCain is using this language as an attack against Obama - and I'm not really sure I get exactly why "spreading the wealth" is a bad thing.
As an American, I've paid taxes since I started working as a teen. I get a lot of them back because I make so little, but I understand that I pay a lot of money into a big pool, and other people decide how to best use that money for the good of all Americans. We have to have taxes, and we have to rely upon a redistribution of tax money. The issue (as I understand it) is where the bulk of the tax burden falls - upon the lower, middle, or upper class. The tax laws are written and re-written to favor some over others with the supposed purpose of benefiting as many Americans as possible.
What I hear people saying is that they are upset that more of their money will be taken away to pay for the needs of people who pay less. The reason (I think) is that it is assumed that people who make more money have worked harder and longer to make a lot of money, and deserve to keep it. While those who are making less money either haven't put in their time yet and will eventually get to the top, or that they are simply lazy and are "mooching" off of the system.
Again, as an American, this really bothers me, for several reasons - but I'll only offer one for now. In general, our country enjoys greater wealth and success than any other country in history. And yet the sentiment I hear expressed is that we want more, and we are worried that excessive luxuries we have and we think we deserve will be taken away. The result is an ever more apparent equity gap. Brian McLaren briefly describes this exponential increase of the equity gap in his book "Everything Must Change" - "If you take the top 20% of [U.S.] wage-earners and compare them to the bottom 20%, the ratio jumped from 18:1 in 1990 to 24:1 in 2000." (pg. 234) The statistics are even more sickening when considered on a global scale.
The more I consider the statements and policies of John McCain and others in his party, the more I am convinced that they are selfish, greed-driven, big-dollar-CEO-style politics that will only continue to make the rich insanely more rich, and hinder more people who are in genuine need from being able to receive assistance. In my opinion, this is fundamentally un-American.
Although this post is already (really) long, I have to address the same issue from a Christian standpoint. The mindset (again, as I understand it) that says, "I deserve to keep my riches and I am not interested in helping those below me who are in need," is clearly unbiblical. From the Hebrew laws of the Jubilee years (Lev. 25) to the first Christian communities sharing "everything in common...giving to anyone as he had need," the indisputably clear Christian attitude is showing mercy to the poor and in need by helping in real, practical ways. The minor prophets (often forgotten in modern Evangelicalism) repeatedly show God's heart for the poor and judgement against the unmerciful rich. For example, read Amos 5:11-24, "You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them...For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins..." (v. 11-12).
As I read and reflect on these verses, I am personally humbled and embarressed, and I am in awe of modern American Christianity. How have we forgotten God's heart for the poor, the needy, the sick, the stranger? (see Matt. 25) As Christians we should always be challenging our government to do more for the poor in our country, to close the equity gap, to bring greater prosperity to all people, even if that might mean a greater financial burden for those of us who can afford it.
There is clearly so much more that could be said about this - so what do you think? And by the way, if you made it to the end of this post, you will be glad to know that the above picture was taken today at the church just down the street from our house in Grove City. If you know me at all, you know how I love church signs!!!
The recent political buzzword is socialism *gasp* - I can't figure out the line of reasoning (or lack thereof) that I've heard thrown around lately:Barack Obama plans to tax higher income citizens more than lower income - we've all heard it: Everyone making less than $250,000 would get a tax break, and businesses and individuals above that line would make up the difference, thereby "spreading the wealth." McCain is using this language as an attack against Obama - and I'm not really sure I get exactly why "spreading the wealth" is a bad thing.
As an American, I've paid taxes since I started working as a teen. I get a lot of them back because I make so little, but I understand that I pay a lot of money into a big pool, and other people decide how to best use that money for the good of all Americans. We have to have taxes, and we have to rely upon a redistribution of tax money. The issue (as I understand it) is where the bulk of the tax burden falls - upon the lower, middle, or upper class. The tax laws are written and re-written to favor some over others with the supposed purpose of benefiting as many Americans as possible.
What I hear people saying is that they are upset that more of their money will be taken away to pay for the needs of people who pay less. The reason (I think) is that it is assumed that people who make more money have worked harder and longer to make a lot of money, and deserve to keep it. While those who are making less money either haven't put in their time yet and will eventually get to the top, or that they are simply lazy and are "mooching" off of the system.
Again, as an American, this really bothers me, for several reasons - but I'll only offer one for now. In general, our country enjoys greater wealth and success than any other country in history. And yet the sentiment I hear expressed is that we want more, and we are worried that excessive luxuries we have and we think we deserve will be taken away. The result is an ever more apparent equity gap. Brian McLaren briefly describes this exponential increase of the equity gap in his book "Everything Must Change" - "If you take the top 20% of [U.S.] wage-earners and compare them to the bottom 20%, the ratio jumped from 18:1 in 1990 to 24:1 in 2000." (pg. 234) The statistics are even more sickening when considered on a global scale.
The more I consider the statements and policies of John McCain and others in his party, the more I am convinced that they are selfish, greed-driven, big-dollar-CEO-style politics that will only continue to make the rich insanely more rich, and hinder more people who are in genuine need from being able to receive assistance. In my opinion, this is fundamentally un-American.
Although this post is already (really) long, I have to address the same issue from a Christian standpoint. The mindset (again, as I understand it) that says, "I deserve to keep my riches and I am not interested in helping those below me who are in need," is clearly unbiblical. From the Hebrew laws of the Jubilee years (Lev. 25) to the first Christian communities sharing "everything in common...giving to anyone as he had need," the indisputably clear Christian attitude is showing mercy to the poor and in need by helping in real, practical ways. The minor prophets (often forgotten in modern Evangelicalism) repeatedly show God's heart for the poor and judgement against the unmerciful rich. For example, read Amos 5:11-24, "You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them...For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins..." (v. 11-12).
As I read and reflect on these verses, I am personally humbled and embarressed, and I am in awe of modern American Christianity. How have we forgotten God's heart for the poor, the needy, the sick, the stranger? (see Matt. 25) As Christians we should always be challenging our government to do more for the poor in our country, to close the equity gap, to bring greater prosperity to all people, even if that might mean a greater financial burden for those of us who can afford it.
There is clearly so much more that could be said about this - so what do you think? And by the way, if you made it to the end of this post, you will be glad to know that the above picture was taken today at the church just down the street from our house in Grove City. If you know me at all, you know how I love church signs!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)