Just Keep Asking

Is caring about social justice a type of works righteousness?

2011-12-02T07:44:00.001-08:00

I've found that almost anytime I try to talk in a Lutheran context of issues of social justice, the conversation ends because whoever I'm talking to refers to works righteousness, almost as if that is their trump card for not needing to care or do anything about problems in the world, be it economic injustice or issues of environmental stewardship. I feel there should be more to the conversation, so I was wondering what your thoughts on this were.

You have run into one of the worst and most common distortions of the Lutheran distinction between grace and works. It is a distortion growing out of misunderstandings that have left many with an overly intellectualized or sentimentalized understanding of faith. It has also left them with underdeveloped spiritual lives.

First, “works righteousness” is about a transaction between God and a human being. The human being does something “good” in order to receive something good (a blessing, forgiveness, acceptance, etc.) from God. In essence, the human being either 1) buys something from God, or 2) is subject to a form of conditioning by God (think Pavlov’s dogs).

Next, there is a deeply embedded misunderstanding of “faith” itself. Somewhere along the way faith became “assent to a certain set of doctrines.” That’s a tactic necessary when you are defining yourself over-against someone or something else. But, Jesus’ own understanding of “faith” has little if anything to do with such assent. His understanding of faith seems to rest in an internal sense of worth before God that pours out in honoring the value of others – especially those least valued by societal systems. Such faith is a “whole-body”, “whole-life” thing that is a complex of identity, belief, and behavior.

So, addressing issues of justice, earth care, and the like isn’t something we have to do to get God’s approval. Instead, addressing those issues is a reflection of the approval we and everyone else and all of creation have already received. To not act for justice is, all too often, no more than a passive-aggressive rejection of God’s approval of those we have difficulty accepting.

9/11 Sermon Posted on My Other Blog

2011-09-11T18:03:00.001-07:00

No one is sending questions, so new post at To Where the River Flows

2011-07-31T11:09:00.001-07:00

Why did God let Eve be led to sin?

2011-05-25T07:22:00.000-07:00

If Luther didn't see Eve as evil, but clueless, why did God let her be led to sin by the evil serpent?

First of all, the writer of Genesis does not call the serpent “evil”. The Hebrew adjective used to describe the serpent is usually translated here as “crafty” (or, “shrewd”, or “clever”, etc., but it can also be translated “naked”). Those translations may point to all sorts of characteristics, but “evil” is not implied. The serpent does not lie to, mislead, or deceive Eve, but simply tells the truth which God has withheld. Eve is hardly clueless (in the sense of foolish or naive), instead I see her as a seeker of better things.

Reading the encounter as an explanation of sin, original or otherwise, probably is unwarranted, and certainly is unnecessary. The story simply posits human freedom of decision and action, and makes a straightforward statement that the desire to know “right and wrong” is fundamentally human. It also reminds us that such knowing comes with consequences and without paradise. It also tells us that death is not a punishment for sin, but is a reality of life.

The story also tells us that God is neither interventionist nor “in control”. The reality seems to be that God responds to what unfolds from creation, provisioning us for our journeys. The notion that God “lets” things happen seems to me to be a category mistake that is rooted in our unwillingness to accept both our freedom and its consequences.

The "Evil One"?

2011-05-21T09:17:00.000-07:00

How is the concept of the existence of 'the evil one', tied to our concept of sin?

The short answer is, “completely.” Our understanding of sin is the major determining factor in how, and even if, we think of “the evil one.”

The early stories of the Hebrew Scriptures don’t include an “evil one” at all. Identifying the serpent in the Garden of Eden as the evil one is an act of later interpreters seeing what they want to see. Sin is a matter of relationship to the one God and the one family/tribe. No outside influences are noted, no scapegoat is needed. Later, beginning with Abram and Sarai, there are other gods of other families/tribes, but they pose no threat. The divine diversity is an accepted reality and sin is a matter of relationship with one’s own god and tribe: still no evil one. This continues through the Exodus, tribal and kingdom periods. Spiritual struggle is a battle between gods, not between God and the evil one.

The evil one – Satan – the devil, doesn’t show up in scripture until after the Babylonian Captivity (6th century, BCE). During the captivity and upon return to a far move “diverse” Judea, faithfulness to the covenant became a decidedly different issue. The safety of a culturally homogenous tribe/geographic territory was gone. Other cultures and their religions offered options never known so intimately and available so readily. Temptations to seek alternate paths to happiness, or simply to survival in the challenging world, abounded. With the temptations, along comes the tempter – temptation personified. Satan, the deceiver, is first God’s secret agent. Patterned after the role of the Persian secret police, God gives Satan the job of setting up people to see if they remain loyal. (So, when we pray “save from the time of trial/lead us not into temptation” in the Lord’s Prayer, we’re asking God to go easy on us.)

Over time, God’s agent, seems to “flip”. Satan begins to work in collusion with empires and other religions – those that would suppress or undo the faith of the faithful. In the end Satan, becomes the other side – and empires and religions become Satan’s tools.

Through it all, the issues have been loyalty and honor. The existence of the evil one is the result of the human need to explain radical disloyalty and dishonor…a turning away from one’s fundamental identity.

As societies became ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse, inclusion/identity became a matter of following commonly held laws. The citizen replaced the member of the family. Obedience to the laws became the standard of inclusion and morality. Sin became a matter of immoral behavior (in relationship to a trans-cultural, disembodied legal code) and Satan the one who tempts and entraps people into that behavior. Satan then also came to personify the corruptive influence of power upon those who administer the law, becoming “a law unto himself”. At the same time, interestingly, Satan retains a role as God’s administrator of eternal punishment (though this seems to be mostly a theological twist to avoid dualism).

By and large, I see “the evil one” as a projection and personification of the human capacity to do harm, and our own remorse and disbelief at just how much harm we can do.

A New Blog

2010-09-08T07:07:00.000-07:00

I've just begun a new blog: http://riveroffaith.blogspot.com

It's a bit more adventurous than Just Keep Asking. My thoughts and reflections: intentionally pushing the boundaries of faith, theology, language about God, and the church. I hope you'll take a look.

For years I've thought the church works hard to dam the flow of faith, keep it in familiar and, often, artificial channels. My hope is to go to where the river flows. Perhaps you'll join me in the river.

Blessings

What about blessings?

2010-08-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

Just a question about blessings. I have a hard time saying, "God has blessed us" or "God's blessings to you" because it feels like a request that God favor someone or that He has favored us. Doesn't that imply that the opposite is true, that God can show malice or withhold blessings? And don't some people use that as an excuse to ignore the 'unblessed', i.e. if God has forgotten the poor, the ill, the homeless, victims of abuse, then so should we? (Interestingly, when a friend gets an illness we usually don't believe God is withholding favor, it's just the awful, erratic disease.) I guess I just always thought good and bad things happen in the world because of the nature of imperfection in the world, but that God is truly there, never leaves us and offers us hope. Saying, "blessings to you" implies a belief that God plays favorites, and maybe that's offensive to God's true nature. Thoughts?

You’re asking a question that has sent a lot of people running from faith: the problem of God’s “justice”. The receiving or withholding of blessings is right at the day-to-day heart of the issue. I’ve spent a lot of time in the last four years wrestling with that myself.

Many would argue that God is only acting as any good parent would: showering us with love, but sometimes withholding good things as a means of discipline, or letting us get into trouble so that we learn a lesson. According to this approach, the really awful things that happen are either part of a plan that’s just too complex for us to understand, or points where Satan is allowed to take over for a moment (which in the end is also, really part of the master plan).

I’m with you, that paints a picture of an interventionist god who plays favorites…or frankly, is just arbitrary, whimsical, or mean. No sane human parent would act in the extremes we allow god in that approach. I think that understanding developed as a way to legitimate the use of violence as a means of control and wealth building. Within faith, that understanding ultimately takes God’s love out of the realm of grace and gift, and places it in the category or rewards or compensation – but again, that’s all about control by those who grant or withhold the blessings (priests, pastors, etc.)

I have no interest is such a god.

Over against that god, is the God we know in and through Jesus. The blessings of God are all around, if only we have “eyes to see” and “ears to hear”. They are available to all, saint and sinner, all the time. The moments of tragedy, the times of disease are simply the way it is. In those moments and times we can be the bearers of blessing, and be the blessing for those who suffer. The promise of God is that in any and every moment there is an invitation to transformation/grace – which is to say that God is present.

Having said that, I think I’m going to have to think through my own habit of wishing people “God’s blessings”. I mean to say, “may you see and hear know the invitation to transformation/grace”, but that’s a bit of a mouthful. Perhaps the best thing is to change my punctuation and turn it from a wish to an exclamation.

Blessings!

Casting Fleece

2010-07-26T06:24:00.000-07:00

As a topic of conversation, the subject of Casting a Fleece before the lord came up.
I went to find the Scriptural basis for this practice and found it in the 6th Chapter of judges where Gideon needs three "proofs' from God before he heeds the word and leads the Israeli army into a victorious battle over the Midianites Obviously my bias is showing through
The person I was discussing this with said they used the practice if they had a hard decision and needed to be sure it was God's word they were hearing... I was just immediately struck with the thought that this is just bad theology and the practice is based on a one-time occurrence in the Bible and that the illustration was more to prove our utter human inability to grasp when God is directing us, we needing more and more proof. I said it was bad theology and was met with the rejoinder; well I've been using it since I was quite young, as well as the practice of casting lots. I was sorely tempted to use the Dr Phil line, "and how’s that working out for you" but bit my tongue and decided to respect an honest though different expression of faith.
I did some research on my own and was surprised to find even most conservative religious sites do not encourage it as a practice, but do recognize that for those weak in faith go ahead and use it and if sincerely given to God in prayer, they will hear His answer.

A number of thoughts come to mind, a number of images from scripture. Probably foremost is the “temptation” of Jesus. In that encounter with the Deceiver Jesus utters a simple solution, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” Testing God in much of any form seems to me to be a recipe for disappointment at least. God doesn’t respond the way we would…and I’d venture to say, sometimes God just doesn’t respond.

But there’s more to the question, which really is more about knowing “the will” of God. Scripture seems filled with multiple forms of such discernment. Abram negotiates with and cajoles God. Moses has a vision and climbs a mountain. Elijah finds the answer in deep silence. The apostles cast lots (i.e. roll the dice). Paul has something of a seizure on the road to Damascus followed by a time of desert reflection (according to one account). Among the Judges of Israel, like Gideon, there is a variety of approaches. A friend and mentor would help people gather prayer teams when such need for discernment was expressed. The group would meet, clarify the question, and then each go pray and return with their “answer” – the majority ruled.

More personally, I’ve come to think that there’s rarely a single answer. I’m more inclined to ask how can I bring the values and ways of the kingdom to bear regardless of the choice. God’s “way” is perhaps more about how we walk the path we’re on, than it is about which path we’re on. God meets us, and offers transformation to us, even when we’re on paths of self-destruction. When pressed on a difficult decision, though, I’d probably just ask which choice gives you the best opportunity to love your neighbors…and if it isn’t clear then I’d say, with Luther, sin boldly – take your best shot, and ask for forgiveness even more boldly. Like I said, God meets us everywhere…especially in our brokenness.

How do we count the days?

2010-04-28T08:21:00.000-07:00

Jesus in Matthew 12:38-40 uses the example of Jonah to compare to His own burial in the heart of the earth.... I realize the language may be figurative.. but in reality, He only spent two nights in the earth if He rose on the day after Sabbath... I know it's an angels dancing on the head of the pin kind of question and as far as my faith in His resurrection goes, it's immaterial, but just asking:
How do scholars/theologians/pastors reconcile the words with the record?

First off, let’s take a moment with the day count. According to Matthew, Jesus died about 3pm on Friday, before the beginning of the new day/Sabbath at one hour before sunset. So, that was one day in the ancient way of counting. Friday evening –Saturday: day two. Saturday evening – Sunday: day three. I recall, though only vaguely, some theologians counting the darkness on the day of crucifixion as a “night”.

You hit on the key when you say “figurative”. 3 is a number of completeness in the Bible, like 7 and 12 and 40. The point is that Matthew, and all the writers of the Bible, (and Jesus, too) were more interested in communicating the story of God at work in the world than they were with the accurate recording of data points (what we, not they, call “reality”). The reality, Biblically, is that Jesus completed his self-sacrifice for the sake of the world.

Reconciling the varieties of accounts of events in the Bible seems to have been a fascination of the “age of enlightenment”, but has probably done more harm than good to the understanding of scripture. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each tell a different story in details and interpretation of the one life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But they don’t need to be reconciled for each to provide their own sense of the grace and mercy of God…different facets of one gem.

So, I think the most honest scholars/theologians/pastors don’t reconcile the words with the record…they celebrate the story.

Thoughts about Politics and the Church

2010-03-22T06:55:00.000-07:00

Last night’s vote on health care reform in the U.S., was hardly the end of it. Our divided nation will be more divided. Wrangling and rancor will continue, and indeed, increase. That is the way of the world. It is most certainly nothing new. But what a sad display: it remains disheartening and disturbing.

Still a Christian, I am most disturbed by those who identify themselves as Christians and who see our government as an enemy and not as an instrument of compassion. I continue to be dumbfounded by those who care about the first three trimesters of life and are totally callous about the fourth trimester. I continue to be appalled by those who call this a Christian nation, demanding legislated moral constraints, without demanding care for the least among us. I continue to be saddened by the Christians that label such care as socialism, and sees solutions only in capitalism (as though it was a social mechanism baptized by Jesus himself). Have they never read about the communities of Jesus in the New Testament?

No wonder fewer and fewer Americans are finding hope and solace in the church.

We have so much work to do to show we still matter.

Why some laws and not others?

2010-02-04T07:50:00.000-08:00

Why is it that we write off a lot of things that Moses told us not to do, while hanging so tenaciously to others?

The question comes from someone who has experienced judgment from some Christians over his cross dressing, which he sees as part of his gender identity, not simply as a sexual “fetish” as some cross dressers do. To add the scriptural context, Deuteronomy 22.5 provides an injunction for men wearing women’s clothes and vice versa. It sits in the midst of other injunctions that include dealing with wandering livestock, construction safety, not plowing with a yoke of mixed animals, not combining fabrics in a garment, and a lengthy section on what to do with a man unhappy with his purchased bride.

Texts like these in the Torah seem pretty randomly assembled and reflect issues ranging from justice, to tribal identity/purity, to worship, to general social order reflecting a perceived created order. For Christians oriented to legalism (obedience or “earn your way into God’s grace” type folks) many of these injunctions still hold, with the exception of those that are specifically excluded in the New Testament; for example the food restrictions being lifted in Acts 10.

Still, such groups do pick and choose which to pay attention to and which to ignore. Among such “literalists” one will often find long hair on men and short hair on women in spite of Paul’s statements in 1Corinthians 11.14-15.

It seems as though most of such groups, the conservative end of Christianity, are clinging to the sex focused injunctions (some of them anyway…not so much divorce) as a way of standing over against the shifting scientific knowledge and mores of society. The goal is to maintain a claim to a unique purity/identity that extends unblemished back to the time of Moses. Such folks tend to need the message of scripture to be unchanged from Old Testament to New, and from New Testament to now.

Others of us in the Christian family operate from a “freedom in the Gospel” perspective that sees the injunctions passing and the Law fulfilled in Christ. Life is not about obedience, but in lived active gratitude and compassionate relationship with others. There is much freedom to be had, here, though often such freedom is distorted by our individualistic society into an “I’ll do whatever I want” attitude (not particularly Christian at all). Paul suggests instead that we all work to consider and account for our neighbors weaknesses and not offend them for the sake of our freedom but instead, walk with them, slowly if necessary, along their path of growth in faith. To cause someone to stumble by pushing them forward is as bad as unjustly holding someone back. It is a dance…and a challenge.

On a midnight clear?

2009-12-30T16:15:00.000-08:00

A theological question which has hit me this season of Nativity: Even though I knew one of everyone's favorite carols, "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear", was written by a Unitarian minister, it never entered my mind before this year to ponder the text carefully. There really isn't anything in this carol about the reason for the season - the incarnation of Christ into our lives. Now, I am wondering if this is a carol which should be lifted up as much as it is every year...
What are your thoughts on this?

First, I’d never thought about it. Second, the hymn is clearly celebrating God’s intention for the time of peace. So, I’d rate it as a fine hymn of the season, one that would reflect Jesus’ birth story as told by John (if he’d done that) who is often more interested in what the Father is doing in and through Jesus than in Jesus himself. Indeed, John’s gospel as it is pays no heed to Jesus’ birth at all, jumping from cosmic poetry to Jesus’ baptism (a God directed event) without even a nod to Bethlehem. Still we read from John 1 on most Christmas mornings.

From a Trinitarian perspective it might also serve as a nice leavening hymn over against the weight of all the hymns pointed at Jesus and, especially, Mary. So all in all I’d go ahead and sing away…I’m sure the angels are still bending near the earth to listen.

Credo

2009-12-27T19:14:00.000-08:00

No one asked for this…but it’s sort of an answer (from a couple of months ago, but I still like it) to my own questions.

CREDO

I believe in God the invitation, the event horizon, the giving.

I believe in Jesus the Christ
Called the Son of God
Born of Mary, gift of the Spirit, giving incarnate.
He suffered at the hands of the powerful and afraid
Was humiliated, murdered and buried.
On the third day he shattered power and fear,
And lives in unrestricted relationship with God.
He is the calling Word
He has overruled the judgment of the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit – pure relationship
The unity of all creation
The powerful weakness of forgiveness
The opening door beyond death
And life unbound by time.

Just had to ask…just had to answer.

How do I respond?

2009-11-10T06:38:00.000-08:00

How does one respond when a brother or sister in Christ, a member of your own church, talks about his/her faith in ways that are so far apart from our understanding of God's grace? If a friend uses the phrase, "it helps me on my path to enlightenment" when describing his/her participation in a service project, or if they speak about their years of teaching Sunday school as proof of 'good Christian' living, what is the best way (if any) to share the tender, loving grace of God which covers anything we do (or don't do)?

A timely question for me…I’ve been becoming more and more frustrated and confused as I feel the urge to respond to people who proclaim a “Christ” who is not at all like the one I encounter in scripture. I find the legalism, magicalism, the image of a cosmic puppeteer appalling. So…what to do?

The first thing, and I confess I’m having issues with this, is to avoid judgment or the desire to correct. Consider the comments an invitation to exploration. What is really being said? While “enlightenment” may bring to mind Buddhist or Gnostic or New Age sorts of ideas, is that what your friend means? Chances are he or she isn’t referring to “satori”, some esoteric mystery, or a higher plane of mind/being. “Enlightenment” is a perfectly good word and a worthy goal…more light, greater understanding, clearer vision. Paul encourages the pursuit of any excellence; enlightenment probably fits the bill. So, invite your friend to talk about what enlightenment means to them.

Teaching Sunday School is, I think, something that can be affirmed as “good Christian living”. The underlying question is probably, “Did you teach as a gift to the children, or as part of a heavenly barter?” Or perhaps, “how did teaching Sunday School effect your Monday through Saturday?” Chances are teaching Sunday School wasn’t some sort of self-imposed penance for weekday debauchery, so how did it fit into and shape the teacher’s life?

There’s always more to the story. Asking to hear more of the story is a good way to get to the real heart of things, and a good opportunity to engage in shared reflection (and growth). To borrow a line from a retired pastor I know, “being right is over-rated.” Tender, loving grace rarely shows up in the form of correction. It is most often walking a little further into peoples lives.

Do We Live Compartmentalized Lives?

2009-09-25T09:35:00.000-07:00

Do we live compartmentalized lives? Do faith and life intersect? Or is faith only a Sunday morning thing meant to give us the assurance of a front seat in heaven? Does what we teach in church apply out in the world? Are Christian values relevant in a corporation for instance? Or are we double-minded as the text in James 4:8?

I’m not at all sure we can be anything but double/triple/multi-minded, if for no other reason than that we live in a world that presents us with a broad array of competing value systems – business, cultural, religious, political, ethnic, familial…and the list could go on, not so much compartmentalized and cacophonous. How does any one of us sort it all out? The simplest answer is we don’t. And, I’m not sure that’s our call as Christians.

I’ve come to prefer the notion that faith isn’t meant to replace the value systems of the world, but disturb them. (Thanks to John Caputo for the idea.) So it’s not so much that faith and life are meant to “intersect”, as that faith erupts (in the grand moments) or insinuates (in the subtle ones) into life. So, language like “apply” and “relevant” doesn’t seem to me to get to the point. The point being to turn things on their head: to love the unlovable and touch the untouchable and forgive the unforgivable.

Take the corporate setting you mention, for example. Assuming that’s a capitalist corporation the objective is to earn ever higher profits. The workers are instruments of that objective; they are tools, so to speak – and the value system has no way of accounting for their appreciation or even depreciation in value (they aren’t corporate assets), they are simply expenses. This is true for the lowest paid worker, the CEO, and everybody in between. Of course, the workers put up with this objectification because it provides them income and some sense of stability with which to address the other aspects of their lives.

It’s hard to say that Christian values/faith have much relevance or apply in such a setting – as though they could be constructively adapted. But they can disrupt the setting calling for recognition of persons’ value, personhood, contribution, and external life challenges/needs. Still that disruption would probably be balanced/mitigated by calls for “fairness” (a decidedly unchristian notion, so far as I can tell – there’s nothing at all fair about forgiveness of sins, debts, or trespasses). And then there’s the whole competition side of corporate, capitalist life – not exactly the context for loving one’s enemies.

So, I think I’d say that Christian values/faith can (should!) always create a tension within life – a tension filled with the expectation that love will show up in some form or another. But we should also expect that the appearance of love will only create new tensions in our cacophonous, multi-minded world.

More About the Bible - Cont.

2009-08-31T07:20:00.001-07:00

More on the Bible – Continued

I didn’t say it in the first piece, but that way of thinking about the Bible really rests on a primary understanding of God as a God of power and moral righteousness. That is why the miracles –stories of power – and law, obedience, retribution and atonement are so dominant. In a world in which the powerful hold life and death in their hands, in which obedience to the laws and conformity to the will of the ruler is the key to staying alive, why would we expect visions of God to be anything other than a supernatural super-power, a supreme ruler (who at least is on our side)? Why would we see the project of religion and the object of faith to be anything other than conformity?

Our understanding of the world has been changing, though.

The cosmos is infinite, heaven isn’t “up” and hell isn’t “down”. Our time frames aren’t measured by the turn of days and generations, but the passage of nanoseconds and eons. A long distance isn’t a league, it’s a light-year. The physics of Newton and Einstein remain basic to our understanding of nature, but even they are not sufficient. In most of our world life and death are not in the hands of king, despot, or dictator, but in the hands of disembodied corporations and the movement of markets. A world-culture is developing, but it’s an amalgam of cultures…and within that world-culture, diversity is increasing exponentially: we are both more the same and yet more different. We are not anymore the center of anything but our own small lives. Our problem is not power, it is relationship.

As always our understanding and interpretation of scripture has shifted to address our problem. Now, it is not God’s power and authority that shape our understanding, but rather God’s weakness and self-giving. Weakness is a provocative word, but it captures the understanding that God enters into our suffering and brokenness, takes in life and death rather than controlling them or using them as tools to punish or reward.

The Bible, then, is the telling of that divine always-entering into the human story. It is necessarily rooted in the particular contexts and world-views of the authors, and understood in the particular contexts and world-views of its hearers/readers. The truth it tells is not data, but is the truth of God’s presence in our lives told in narrative, myth, poetry, wisdom, gospel and letter (among other forms). It is far more important than mere history. It is the sharing of the experience of the divine/human relationship, passed from generation to generation to nurture (not define) that relationship anew. So, notions like “the inerrancy of scripture” are non-sense, a category mistake, missing the point.

My own take on this understanding is that scripture is a Gospel – Law – Gospel sort of thing. We begin with relationship, with God’s desire to be in relationship with creation just as God as Trinity is unity realized in relationship, and with human longing to be in relationship. Law is that word of God that describes relationship and measures its brokenness. Gospel then, offers transformation, freedom, and in the Spirit, relationship shaped by weakness and self-giving. Or you could just call it love.

This understanding of the Bible really demands of us that we not look to scripture with an eye to who is excluded, but with a heart open to those things which build, restore and redeem relationship. We are not bound by the Law, we are free to build up the Body of Christ.

More About the Bible

2009-08-25T07:22:00.001-07:00

Just before worship this past Sunday a member of the congregation pulled me aside to comment on the ELCA’s decision to allow persons in same-gender, committed relationships to serve as pastors. The member said only, “Well, let’s trust that the Word of God will prevail.” The comment brought to mind the issue beneath the issue. The ELCA’s long conversation about sexuality (which, despite last week;s decisions by the Churchwide Assembly, will continue) belies a fundamental theological/pastoral division among Christians. It is, in essence, the same division that split the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the 1970’s: biblical interpretation and biblical authority.

It seems to me that we have not learned the lessons of the last 30+ years. Rather than get the conversation out of the sequestered atmosphere of seminary classrooms we just sweep it aside. In the conversations about sexuality both “camps” begin by simply begging the question. (Here’s a personal rant: “begging the question” does not mean leaving a question unanswered, it means providing an answer before the question can be asked and discussed. It’s not a plea for enlightenment; it’s a preemptive move to keep the question off the table.)

So, here’s my attempt at a summary of the two ends of the spectrum.

On the one hand is an understanding of the truth that binds together what I call the “deep meaning” and the “data”. That which gives direction, purpose, and meaning to life is bound to lived experience. Or maybe even more to the point…that which is reported as experience in the bible must be “data” in our sense of the word. Therefore, the sciences and social sciences shed no light on scripture, there really is no such thing as “context”, and to investigate/explain the miracles and contradictions in scripture is an exercise in doubt and a denial of divine authority. Things like the two different orders of creation in Genesis are just part of the divine mystery. Things like fossils are deceptions (by God or by Satan: I’ve heard both).

This mode of understanding is deeply rooted in Enlightenment thinking and bears the marks (at least some of them) of the scientific mindset. Like a scientific theory inerrancy is demanded: the whole thing falls if even the tiniest bit falls. There is no room for an approximation or allowance for cultural variation. Gravity is precisely the same here as it is in Jerusalem, so too, then scripture had precisely the same meaning, in second century Ephesus that it does in 21st century Seattle. Also, like scientific theories, scripture must contain all reality, there are no alternatives…the perception of the world offered by non-believers of any stripe must simply be wrong.

The spot at which this way of thinking deviates from scientific theory is repeatability. Science demands that experiments be repeatable, yielding the same results at any time and place. But such is not the case with the truths of scripture – not everyone for whom we pray is healed, for example. This un-repeatability is covered by the mystery of God’s will, the failure (usually moral) of the one praying or the one being prayed for, or is spiritualized with the phrase “healing and curing are not the same thing.” When necessary the supernatural trumps the natural: divine intervention and divine neglect are not for us to understand.

Finally, this leads to the very non-scientific belief that there is a “plain sense” of scripture that any reasonable person of faith can get from opening the pages of the Bible. What the Bible “says” is self-evident and not in need of explanation, adaptation, or modification.

As For Me

2009-08-24T11:08:00.000-07:00

I've had several requests for this sermon, so while this is a departure from what's usual for the blog, I thought I'd post it. This was preached yesterday 8-23-2009 following the ELCA's decision to allow persons in same-sex committed relationships to be Pastors, Diaconal Ministers, and Associates in Ministry.

As for Me
Appalling Acts of Radical Compassion
Joshua 24.1-2a, 14-18, Psalm 34.15-22 Ephesians 6.10-20 John 6.56-69

Choices are a part of life: some are really easy.
Tostitos and salsa or Ruffles and dip?
Chocolate or Vanilla?
Mariners or Yankees (some are really easy)?
Ford or Toyota?
Boxers or briefs?
More or less?

But some choices are anything but simple. Some appeal to our need to be right; some bring joy to some and grief to others. Those are the kind of choices that were made this week at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly. And that means that they are the kind of choices that demand that we be genuine in our faith: genuine in the way Paul means it when he writes to the divided congregation in Corinth. He does not demand that they get it right, he calls them to be genuine – which he then goes on to describe as love.

I don’t like talking about choice from the pulpit. The worship band folks from our 9:00am service will tell you that whenever I see the word choice in the lyrics of the songs they sing, I write new lyrics. I’m no fan of choice theology, (it too easily leads to the idea that salvation and righteousness are up to me) yet I have come to grudgingly accept, as I have read the Bible over the last 37 years (as student, teacher, pastor and repentant believer), that just as light is both a wave and a particle – it depends on what you’re looking for – so faith is pure gift and choice.

Besides, with today’s reading I can’t avoid it. “Choose,” Joshua says to the assembled leaders and elders as he and Aaron’s son are about to die and a change of generations is about to take place. “Choose between the lesser gods of convenience and comfort or God who wrestles with us, leads us into physical and spiritual wildernesses, journeys and battles, who calls us into constant repentance and forgiveness, radical generosity and compassion, and hospitality to angels and saints, strangers and sinners.

He’s just echoing his mentor Moses, who said it more simply, “See I have set before you today death or life. Choose Life.

Jesus says it more personally, his teachings and actions are hard to take, and many of his disciples have left. He turn to the twelve and ask, “Do you also want to leave? Will you walk away from me or walk with me?”

But the choice isn’t easy, even when the gift of faith has been given. Jesus comes with appalling acts of radical compassion and love.
Calls hicks and dreamers to be his disciples
Turns water to wine for an already inebriated wedding party
Chases out of the temple those whose presence has been blessed by priests and Levites, but whose greed creates a barrier to those who just want to worship
Tells a leader of the people he has to start over with a new life and new perspective
Calls himself the son of God
Forgives sin
Heals on the Sabbath
Calls himself the giver of eternal life
Claims authority above and beyond Scripture
Feeds thousands
Offers himself, his body and blood, for the people

And that’s just the first six chapters of John. He will yet
Save the life of the woman caught in adultery and send her away without condemnation
Shatter the myth of a connection between sin and physical defects and differences
Heal the blind
Raise Lazarus
Let his feet be touched and anointed by a woman who is not related to him
Wash the feet of his disciples
Give his peace
Choose weakness over power and submit to the authorities
Die on the cross

You who say you love me…what will you choose…do you also want to leave?

It wasn’t and isn’t an easy choice. Our instinct is to return to the things that help us avoid wrestling with issues, that help us put life (ours and everyone else’s) in order, and make life convenient, profitable, and comfortable. The things that make it easy to not look beyond ourselves, not look at the consequences of our choices, not have to honor our interdependence, or confess our own sin first, or give ourselves away. We’d prefer the lesser gods of moral rectitude, self-righteousness, self-service and cultural accommodation.

If our choices are so self-focused, so turned in on ourselves, so demanding of a single mind, how will we turn to the family at the church seeking shelter? How will we continue to dig wells in communities that thirst regardless of the language they speak, the traditions they honor, the religion they follow? How will we speak the gospel of Jesus Christ to a nation that is wracked with anxiety, struggling to recover, and reeling from the divisive language of politicians and pundits and the fearful? How will we be Christ’s Church?

You who say you love me…what will you choose…do you also want to leave? Or, will you realize that these things I do, I do for you, freely in spite of your sin, because of your sin. The wine…it’s for you. Worship…it’s for you. New life…it’s for you. Forgiveness, hope, healing, me…my flesh and blood…my dying…it’s for you. I will let nothing stand in the way of my love for you. I am the Son of God who wrestles with you as you wrestle with life and what it brings. You who say you love me, do you also want to leave, or will you join me in appalling acts of radical compassion?

As for me and my house the only answer can be, “We will serve the Lord. After all, Lord, to whom shall we go? You, you Jesus, have the words of eternal life.”

What does being a "good" parent mean today?

2009-08-17T08:04:00.000-07:00

What does being a "good" parent mean today? How do I know if I'm sending my children down the "right" path?
I sometimes feel overwhelmed by the millions of messages in the world today about parenting. Do I just go with the model my parents gave me, or do I follow what the magazine says, or what the doctor says, or what my friends say, or what my neighbors say, or what the t.v. show says…etc. OY! If my children say prayers with vigor and meaning but watch Spongebob am I a good parent? If they show love and affection for each other but also hit am I a good parent? I see the same contradictions in them as I see in myself and wonder sometimes if I couldn't help them to rise above these...and then I would be a good parent....what do you think?

What an important question!

Years ago I stumbled into a phrase that I still like to use when it comes to parenting: partners in creation. Children are not born as formless blobs of clay; they do not come with or as “blank slates”. They are born in the image of God, they bear forward millions of years of genetic refinements, they have “wired-in” paths of information processing, and built in quirks. And then…there are all the needs they come with both as infants and as human beings. They are glorious, holy puzzles who in the end have to solve themselves…but in the beginning need parents to put the pieces into place.

I doubt there’s any real “program” that will make parenting easier or guarantee its success. Children generally aren’t influenced by programs as much as they absorb what they see and hear. Rules are useful, boundaries a necessity, but example and relationship rule the day…and the night. Just as children learn to speak by mimicking the sounds we make, they learn to relate to others and the world by watching and imitating parents…and as time goes on anyone who’s older and seems interesting (which can be a challenge).

One of the problems with advice and programs is that we tend to let them become ideals against which we measure ourselves. That would be fine if we could be perfect, but we can’t. No one gets it right all of the time: scratch the surface of an “expert” and you’ll probably find someone who’s trying to figure out where they went wrong. One of the best examples you can give your child is confession and forgiveness. Parents don’t need to pretend to be perfect, besides your children see right through that nonsense even when they’re toddlers. Instead, honor (at least to yourself), that you’re learning to be a parent while you’re parenting. Your child will learn a truly great lesson from your honesty, humility and forgiveness.

More than any parenting program I urge parents to practice presence and relationship. Presence is just simply being there. When my children were little one of the parenting fads was scheduled “quality time” with your children…what a joke! Your daughter or son set the terms of quality time and there’s no particular, predictable schedule. (And please note: quality time isn’t necessarily happy time.) By “practicing relationship” I mean one thing in particular, the family meal. There are other aspects of relationship of course, but the family meal is a treasure. No phones, no TVs, around the table, time to eat and talk: it might be breakfast, lunch, or dinner, or even tea-time.

The other piece of relationship that’s profound is conversation…which is 90% listening. Practice it with your spouse, practice it with your children…and yes with God, too. As parents, my wife and I let our children read and watch just about whatever popular stuff they wanted, on one condition – we’d talk about it: which, of course, meant that we had to read and watch what they did. Thirty years down the road I can tell you the pay-off has been huge, consistent, and positive. Have no fear of Sponge-Bob, (we survived She-Ra Princess of Power), just talk about him.

In the end, I think, good parents are the ones who keep wondering if they’re doing a good job, and keep looking for ways to grow as parents. The hard part is that childhood and adolescence are so full of challenges and change for a child that it can be hard to know how we’re doing. It’s only when our children reach adulthood that we really see the consequences and results of our efforts. So, the best we can do is love our children along the way, try, ask forgiveness and keep trying, and trust in God’s presence and grace as we work with the glorious, holy puzzles that are our children.

How do I/we read the Bible?

2009-08-12T07:34:00.000-07:00

How do I/we read the Bible – or the different parts of it?

Prayerfully, thoughtfully, carefully, frequently…the adverbs flow pretty easily with this question. They’re true enough, so add them to your list, but there’s really more to the answer (which explains why there are hundreds of books on the topic). But there are a few suggestions I’ll make.

Honor the differences within the Bible. Poetry, wisdom writing, histories, personal letters, formal letters, apocalyptic, myth (a very misunderstood word), legal codes and gospels are all there and each communicates its messages differently. But keep in mind that none of them, not even the histories and the gospels, communicate “truth” in our generally scientific sense of the word. The objective is not to report what “actually” happened, (and really, we’re no closer to doing that than were the ancients), but instead to proclaim/explain how God was at work in the events described. Hyperbole and embellishments are part of the program: rather than diminishing the truth of a story (which is how we react to those elements) they enhance and reinforce the message.

Honor the Bible as a book that belongs to the faith community. The Bible is meant to be read and interpreted together. The notion that any reasonably educated, rational person can simply pick it up and understand it is a pretty recent fantasy. The Bible is meant for conversation and dialog and discernment – all of which require more than one of us. And, remember, that faith community includes the Jews. While Christians don’t share their interpretive beginning point (Jesus) with the Jews, it’s a mistake to ignore historical and current Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament. Read the Bible, and read what others have to say about it, and talk with others to find out what they say about it.

Honor the Bible as the living word. It is not a container for life, but a partner on the journey. It is much less about the boundaries of a faithful life than it is about the flow of faithfulness in our lives. It is much less about what to believe than it is about how to believe.

Honor the Bible by not turning it into an idol, an object of worship, a substitute for the Word of God/Jesus. And don’t confuse the copy/version/pages you hold in your hand with “the Bible”, which is all versions, translations, variations faithfully formed and read. There is no one Bible from which all the others stem…they all together are one Bible.

Finally, honor the Bible (and your life!) by actually reading it – even the parts you don’t like, find boring, find offensive or difficult. Wrestling with the Bible is a good pastime and a holy recreation.

What is the Bible?

2009-07-26T06:34:00.000-07:00

What is the Bible?

It’s such a basic question that often we don’t ask it and simply presume we all agree. It’s such a difficult question that, unanswered and unattended to, it fires many of our divisions. It borders on the absurd to think that someday Christians will come to a unified understanding, so the best we can do is to be thoughtful and honest with each other about how we answer the question and determine whether we’re willing to live with each others’ differences.

I’m going to try to do this positively, rather than negatively. It would be easier to describe what I think the Bible isn’t, but that’s the sort of reactivity that seems to be at the root of our divisions.

I understand the Bible to be the living, inspired word of God, which means it’s the word about God relayed to us through hundreds of generations of spiritual reflection, remembrance, editing (sometimes intentional) and interpretation, for our own reflection, remembrance and interpretation. It is the complicated, sometimes convoluted, autobiography of the human relationship with God, told from (at least) hundreds of perspectives. While it’s our autobiography, it always points both to us and beyond us – beyond our individual selves (including our families, communities, nations, denominations, faiths) to each other, and beyond that to the cosmos, and beyond that to God.

The Bible bears the truth into our lives. By that I mean that day by day it carries the truth for us, but also that it gives birth to the truth in our living. (By truth I don’t mean “fact”. Scientists will readily tell us that “fact” is just the word we use for a very high level of probability.) The truth is what moves us to see and understand our relationships with self, others, world and God according to what Jesus called abundant/eternal life and what Paul called grace/freedom. That truth is God’s self giving to us. Not unlike the eucharist (the good gift/giving!), the words of the Bible are meant to be consumed, taken in and made a part of our life/living. (Just to be clear, not in the performance, spout them off in every conversation sort of way, but in the chew them, swallow them, be nourished by them, “these words are part of me” way. In that way the Bible is a bit like a eucharist of words; when we take it in, it draws us into depths and liveliness we couldn’t imagine.)

When I say scripture is inspired, as I did and I do, I am talking about the effects and consequences that come from the reading of scripture. The whole business of inspiration being divine dictation, ecstatic writing, or something similar really isn’t of much interest, value or sense to me. I see the Holy Spirit constantly at work in, through, and with the Bible. That’s why I read the Bible in a lot of translations/collections. For all their beauty and power, the “original” languages aren’t more “right” than translations into other languages, and choosing a particular English translation over others (other than as a matter of taste) is groundless – in fact, like other instances of “literalism” it’s a form of idolatry. The stunning variety of texts, metaphors, and vocabularies within the Bible and throughout its translations is another good bit of evidence of its inspiration.

More to come…

Are We Just Enabling?

2009-07-14T06:34:00.000-07:00

So here is the question-- We do a whole lot of local mission work, helping those who are homeless, have little in the way of resources or money. Jesus teaches us to take care of those-- feed the hungry, etc. When people have made a whole host of poor decisions that have landed them in that spot, are we doing more to enable them to make more poor decisions, or are we really doing good? There are consequences to our decisions--where do these come in? In this culture of kindness and gospel outreach, I feel guilty even asking the question-- but it has been bothering me for months. And maybe it's grace. We don't judge-- we just do what we can and leave the rest to the Lord. Comments?

This is a question with which we constantly struggle as we work to address basic needs. There simply aren’t simple answers.

It is an accurate reading of the gospels to conclude that Jesus never asked someone how they got into a situation of need. It is also an accurate reading to conclude that much of Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees, scribes, priests, and leaders is directed to their socio-economic/political failure to care for the poor and excluded. Such care was an obligation of the “system”/institutions. When it comes to personal choices Jesus seems to point to the reality that systems themselves limit the range of choices one can make. What is possible from one position in the system is impossible from another position in the system.

Maybe the most interesting situations occur with the feeding of the great crowds 5000 and 4000 “not counting women and children”. These people willingly followed Jesus out into the desert and seem to have neglected to provide for their own needs – generally accepted foolish behavior. In addition, it’s likely that few would have suffered by waiting for a meal until they got back home. But, Jesus says, “feed them”.

It’s not that Jesus doesn’t call us to exercise our decision making abilities; he just doesn’t call us to self care. When he feeds and heals he sends people back home to take up their productive/supportive roles in society. When he doesn’t do that he invites people to follow him and join his community – and become healers and feeders of those in need. There is nothing he does about past choices; he only draws people into new opportunities. And what if their choices are once again bad? 70 X 7 seems to be the formula for forgiveness – transformation most often takes a long time.

So, meeting basic needs seems to have several objectives. 1) Meet the need, after all, hungry is hungry, thirsty is thirsty, homeless is homeless. 2) Draw people into community. 3) Turn the healed and fed into healers and feeders of others.

Those are the objectives we actively pursue at Trinity as we deal with basic needs. Thanks be to God, we’re seeing all three of them realized.

What takes place in Baptism? The Scriptures seem to Disagree.

2009-06-22T14:49:00.000-07:00

The scriptures seem to disagree on what actually takes place in baptism. Paul's letter to the Romans 6:5-8 uses the past tense for baptism as uniting us in the death of Christ, and the future tense for our resurrection with Christ. On the other hand, Colossians 2:12 and 3:1 use the past tense for both death and resurrection through baptism. Many scholars feel that the baptismal formula in Colossians actually predates the time when Paul wrote his baptismal formula in Romans. Was the apostle arguing against this earlier formula when he wrote the epistle to the Romans? What is our contemporary understanding of the transformation which takes place in baptism?

Disagree? Scripture?

The beginning point, I guess, has to be a “Yes, isn’t that great!” I’m pretty sure that agreement wasn’t something the authors of scripture even had on their minds and hearts as they wrote. If it was then the inclusion of Gospel of John is totally inexplicable. I know there are many who work very hard to rationalize the differences of scripture. I know there are many more who agonize over the differences. But such uniformity was largely unsought until Thomas Aquinas (with a bow to a rediscovered Aristotle) began to try and force faith into a logical mold. And the relatively common need/longing for uniformity didn’t gain mass appeal until the later enlightenment.

But it’s really like trying to make a privet hedge out of 66 burning bushes. Or, in a less kindly vein, I’ll quote Emerson, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

So…the texts diverge…giving us a taste of the “now, not yet” character of much of the life of faith. We are on the way, but we have not arrived. We know the destination, but we cannot see it, and the road may take us in unexpected directions. Such is baptism.

Luther’s Small Catechism formulation is still one I turn to – “In Baptism God forgives sin, delivers from death and the devil, and gives everlasting salvation to all who believe what God has promised.” Sounds pretty final, but then he follows with, “It means our sinful self, with all its evil deeds and desires, should be drowned through daily repentance; and that day after day a new self should arise to live with God in righteousness and purity forever.” Baptism is eternal and ephemeral all at once: eternal because God’s promise is eternal and ephemeral because we can and do turn our backs on the promise daily.

So, with Baptism and with much of scripture, the question is not: how do we find/forge/force a single consistent answer? Instead it is: how do we live into and out of the paradox?

I Don't Understand the God of the Old Testament

2009-06-20T09:34:00.000-07:00

I don't understand how the God of the Old Testament can be the God of punishment and agony (all the people in the whole world are killed by the Old Testament God, except for the few folks in the ark of Noah!)...and yet be part of the same Trinity that includes the New Testament God of Love as exemplified in Jesus Christ! I constantly see situations here at work where "old testament" minds are punishers, judgmental, close-minded (hit them over the head with your Bible until they agree with you)....versus "new testament" minds who are loving and caring. I just don't understand the Old Testament at all.

This is such a common issue that I end up coming back to it again and again. The challenge is that it really offers a whole bunch of questions tied to together in a single frustrating package. In some form of fairness I have to say that many of the scenes in the Revelation to John paint the same sort of picture as the story of the Flood.) But here’s my two minute take on the questions:

What is the Bible?
How do I/we read it – or the different parts of it?
Why do others read it so differently?
Is it consistent? If not what do I do with the inconsistencies?
What difference does context make?
What does it mean to say that God is God and we aren’t?
Is God just?
Do temporal acts deserve eternal punishment?
Why do we care about death?

But for the moment let’s just take the flood story. Taking it as a piece of “actually happened” human history is walking into life with the angry, capricious, whack-a-mole god that (rightly) seems to have no connection to Jesus at all. Or perhaps it leads us into an understanding of sin in which sin and salvation are really our choices and into a life in which Jesus gives us a daily do-over, but that’s all. Grace in both scenarios is more a divine whim than a divine trait, and has more in common with the Greek gods than with the God of Jesus.

I’d propose, instead, that the flood story be seen from a different angle. The question isn’t “what happened in the past”, but “why are things the way they are now?” Put another way: “If God is a God of righteousness, why is the world full of bad people?”

The question calls us to flip the story around so that we pay attention to what God won’t do. God won’t wipe out all of humanity or even 99 and 44/100% of it. The story is a way of saying that God’s righteousness doesn’t demand our obedience, but always allows all of us to live in the midst grace. Wiping out the bad guys might be a deep human wish, and might be the way we’d solve the problem but it isn’t God’s way. God’s righteousness is poured out in forbearance, hope, and grace and shelters all people. Jesus lives this out consistently and even gives us the parable of the wheat and tares (or wheat and weeds) to reinforce the idea.

The connections between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus we know are many and strong. They just been shadowed by a long mistreatment and growing misunderstanding of scripture, fostered by an understanding of truth that turns it into a sort of data instead of wisdom.

More to come.

What Happens To An Infant That Dies Before Being Baptized?

2009-03-18T09:19:00.000-07:00

What is the proper Lutheran response to an infant who is born alive, but dies before baptism? (I actually know some Lutherans who have had a lifetime of guilt because this happened.)

The proper response is grace – always grace.

The Gospels report many instances of Jesus forgiving people when they have made neither confession nor request, nor, for that matter, even shown any interest at all in forgiveness. The chief instance is Jesus’ request on the cross, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” (If we believe that Jesus’ request was ignored by God and that forgiveness was not forthcoming we have a much bigger issue than the one you’re raising.)

If salvation is dependent on our actions, even the actions of baptizing, then we have simply instituted a new Law – a new set of works by which we save ourselves and by which we deny the grace of God. Interestingly, scripture does not comment on the baptismal status of any of the apostles other than Paul (Acts 9.18).

Baptism is a means of grace, but the love of Jesus is grace. The withholding of baptism by parents, the inability to arrange for baptism before death, the ignorance of every believer’s right to baptize – whatever the reason might be that a child was not baptized is not a reason that the love of God would be withheld.

The proper response is grace – always grace.

Does God Actually Sanction War?

2009-03-17T08:36:00.000-07:00

Does God actually sanction war, or are passages like that in the bible reflections of theologians and writers who look back on an event and say "Well God must have been on our side because we won!" Isn't that kind of like saying that God provided a parking spot when desperately needed or turned the traffic light green?

One of the really unique things about Scripture is that it isn’t simply a report from the victors. Wars won and wars lost are both remembered as the instruments of God’s will: the taking of the land and fall to Babylon both have something to say about the people and about God. The same is true of flood and drought, seasons of harvest and seasons of hunger.

I think what troubles us most are the passages where slaughter is commanded. There’s no easy way to reconcile them to our sensitivities, but that’s the point: our sensitivities. Notions of life and death, their values and consequences, have significantly changed over the centuries. A careful reading of the early writings of the Old Testament reveals a decided indifference to death by whatever means it comes – people die, it’s what we all do and we all go down to Sheol. The rabbinic tradition also reminds us that the death of Israel’s enemies grieved God. Suffering was a facet of life, not an affront to life as it is for many of us.

The work of Scripture is both to describe and discover God at work in the world. It’s no surprise that big events would be a primary context for that work. (The New Testament writers often put a cosmic cast to it.) So “sanction” is a word I wouldn’t use. Instead, I’d speak of the presence of God in all our moments…if finding a parking space is a blessing, who am I to argue? But, let me ask then, are you humbled and contrite when there’s none to found?

Did God Set the Whole Thing Up So We Would Need Christ from the Beginning?

2009-03-16T07:06:00.000-07:00

Did God set the whole thing up so we would need Christ from the beginning?

I think this is a yes and no sort of answer.

First, the yes part. The whole of creation needs God, and the whole of creation depends upon and reflects the divine dance of the Trinity – unity and uniqueness in dynamic, related movement. That may seem obvious, but I think it needs to be said because we tend to act as though what we really believe in is the “watchmaker” God who made everything, wound it up, and walked away.

Now, the no part of the answer. If the question is really, did God foreordain humanity to fail so that the incarnation would be necessary? – as though it met some internal divine need – then I’d say no. Neither divine nor human freedom can be sustained well in that scenario.

Instead, I’ll stick with the relationship. What Scripture seems to witness to is God’s willingness to do whatever it takes to sustain relationship between God and humanity, and among human beings. What God set up is a creation to which God is committed…at any cost.

What Does Prosperity Look Like/Mean to God?

2009-03-15T07:21:00.000-07:00

What does prosperity look like/mean to God?

Rather than make this a long diatribe about “prosperity preachers”, let’s keep it simple. Prosperity,as Scripture describes it, is having enough material resources to care for self, family, community, and the poor, the sick, the prisoner, and the stranger…and then actually doing it. To have the resources and not address each of those points of care is to be greedy. Prosperity is not having wealth. Prosperity is sharing wealth.

How Does This Effect Original Sin?

2009-03-12T08:22:00.000-07:00

Referring back to the post before last.

Our focus on morality, right and wrong, has led us into some unfortunate territory when it comes to original sin (which is more a descriptive designation than a judgment upon humanity). A reading of the Genesis stories of creation and Eden make it difficult to point to a fault any more grievous than curiosity…something that God celebrates in the person of Jacob, even renaming him Israel (God wrestler), and invites in the words of Jesus – seek and you will find, etc. The challenge is that curiosity, while it can lead us to God, can also lead us to walk away from each other. Or to put it another way, the curiosity that draws us together grows from the individuality that allows us to be unique: the freedom to give oneself to another requires the freedom to withhold oneself from another.

That doesn’t mean, I think, that God is “responsible for sin” or that human beings are “pre-destined” to sin. Both claims are efforts to place blame and avoid the reality of sin at it’s most profound level. (The same goes for any of the many variations on “the devil made me do it.”) More to the point, the freedom from which the unity of the Trinity grows (yes, I believe that the Trinity is a freely chosen, and, therefore, essentially fragile, community) is reflected in the human freedom to choose self over community.

“Original Sin”, then is simply what we choose to call our overwhelming tendency to use our freedom to choose for self (whether that self is the individual, an “in” group, a class, nation, race, or religion).

The Time of the Cross

2009-03-09T08:53:00.000-07:00

This is a special post - several people asked for copies/posting of my 3-8-09 sermon - by God's grace it's one I fully wrote (not just an outline). So...here it is, without some minor extemporaneous additions I made while preaching. The primary scripture text is Mark 8.31-38

The Time of the Cross
GENESIS 17.1-7, 15-16 PSALM 22.23-31 ROMANS 4.13-25 MARK 8.31-38

There was a time
In the western world when there was
a single nation of great power
growing diversity in every urban area
goods enough so that no one need be hungry
accolades, adulation, and large sums of money for athletes
a complex financial system that provided security at every level, and
the names and faces of leaders were on coins, in the news, in the hearts and on the lips of the people

It was a time when
relationship meant everything
families took care of families
employers took care of employees
the wealthy knew and lived their responsibility for the poor
the ill, the unemployable, the ones who were alone could trust the generosity of others
to be sure, it was not heaven on earth, but life was livable

But then came greed, and the lust for power, and the turning of years
and those with authority and wealth forgot about relationship
and they began to see the ill, the unemployable, the ones who were alone as burdens
and they began to see the poor as a pool of cheap labor
and they began to see employees as expenses (though some might be good enough to be assets)
and the families fractured and turned inward
and the powerful became fearful
and the greedy became fearless
and life became nasty, brutish, and all too often, short

This was the time of Jesus.
This was the time in which he said if you want to follow me, pick up your cross.

But what did the cross mean in the time of Jesus?
Well, everyone knew what the cross meant. It meant that Rome was in charge – that the powerful and wealthy could do what they wanted – that to stand against them was futile, foolish…deadly. The cross was the demand for obedience, the image of death, the promise of suffering.

No wonder Peter reacted to Jesus the way he did. Peter preferred his Messiah to be one of the powerful and wealthy as well as one of the righteous – fiery like Elijah, wise like Moses, strong like David, rich like Solomon. Futility, foolishness, suffering and death described what it was to stand against the Messiah – not what is was to be the Messiah.

But, Jesus nails Peter’s misunderstanding right to the cross. The way of power and greed is the way of Satan, it leads only to the denial of our accountability for each other, it destroys relationship, it sanitizes, and prettifies, and trivializes the lives of those who struggled to live and serve in the way of God. The way of comfort at others’ expense, at others’ exclusion, at others’ rejection is not the way of the Messiah. “The way of fitting in, playing the game, working the system, he says, is not my way.”

“When you take it up willingly,” Jesus says, “the cross is a symbol of defiance, a symbol of hope. It is a declaration that fear and fearfulness, power and greed, isolation, suffering and death cannot stand in the way of God’s love. When you take up the cross you say, ‘I will risk everything to share that love, to grow that love, to live that love.’ Pick it up, and I will lead you on the way of God. Pick it up and follow me. This is a time for hope like Abraham’s, hope against all hope, hope against all evidence. This is the time of the cross.”

This is the time of the cross. Ours is the time of the cross.

Greed and the lust for power have shattered our economy.
More than ever, employees have become little more than expenses on the profit and loss statement.
Fear and the desire for comfort threaten to turn us away from each other, to shatter families.
Those who care for the ill, the unemployable, the one’s who are alone see their resources and reach being pulled back in the time of greatest need.

Ours is the time of the cross.

In the truth of God’s love, the Spirit’s fire, and Christ’s presence,
held close in the power and promise of resurrection,
freed by Jesus’ own journey to and through the cross
we are the descendants of Abraham
we are the promise come true
we are the people for whom Jesus took up the cross.
We are the people he calls as disciples, followers, bearers of that Gospel.
We are called to be a people of defiant hope,
risking what we have and who we are
for the sake of a Gospel that transforms lives in the midst of challenge,
for the sake of the excluded, the suffering, the wandering
for the sake of those weighed down by fear, anxiety; who want to turn in and away,
for the sake of those who need prayer shawls or quilts,
for the sake of those who need water or warm shelter,
for the sake of those who need work or comfort,
for the sake of those who need a chance to learn or someone to listen,
for the sake of those who need a song to sing or a blessing for dying,
for the sake of our neighbors,
for the sake of the world.

This is a time for hope against all hope.
This is a time for hope against all evidence.
This is the time for the Gospel.
This is the time to follow Jesus.
This is our time of the cross.

Why Did God Choose to Make Creation "Good," Not "Perfect?"

2009-02-28T08:08:00.000-08:00

Why did God choose to make creation “good,” not “perfect?”

I’m not sure that the two words relate – or at least that our English language words do any real justice to the notions expressed in the “original” Hebrew.

The word we translate “good”, it seems to me, is more of an expression of joy and pleasure than a qualitative measurement. The point isn’t to put creation on a scale of bad-good, good-better-best, or flawed-good-perfect. The point is to say God was pleased with results of the speaking of the divine Word. “Let there be light” resulted in light. The same could be said for the even more intimate creation of life through the sharing of God’s own breath.

“Perfect” as we like to think of it is probably a little too attached to the mathematical mind of the Greeks, the Enlightenment, and our own Scientific era. In the Hebrew the word, as I understand it, means wholeness. All is not light, there is light and dark – wholeness. The same could be said for being and non-being; both are required for wholeness. So also, individual and community, symmetry and chaos, perhaps even life an death, illness and wellness (I’ll have to think a little more on those.)

What comes to mind are studies of beauty. Scientists have spent a lot of time charting facial symmetry as a way of determining “beauty”. The evidence broadly suggests that the more symmetrical a person’s facial features, the more beautiful they are seen to be by others. But, there is a limit…exact symmetry is clearly artificial and tends to leave the observer more than a little uneasy. In the end “perfect” doesn’t seem to be what we’re looking for; it’s the “good” in its wholeness that we seek.

How Does God Make Us Secure?

2009-02-24T09:30:00.001-08:00

How does God make us secure?

My first response is, why would you think God makes us secure? Jesus’ call to us is to pick up our cross and follow. The cross, among other things, represents stepping into great insecurity – it is the weapon of those in power and the promise that the bearer will pay dearly for standing against them. So God calls us to insecurity. The same could be said for the call to love our neighbors, which might call us to give away our long term security for their short term welfare. Loving our enemies is even riskier. To set aside our desire for security and seek only our daily bread, to focus on today’s troubles also place us at the edge of risk.

Of course, there’s more to the question. The classic response is that the promise (sure and certain) of eternal life with God gives us the security to risk our lives now. If paradise is waiting for me what are suffering and death except momentary disturbances on the path. (On the down side; this is the sort of certainty that fuels the bloody ambitions of crusaders, jihadists, and others who kill in the name of their god.)

There also is a sort of security that comes in believing that our living is aligned with the will of God – I’m doing what is right and just, and that is its own reward. What ever risk I take for the sake of doing the right thing I know God is pleased with my work. (Without some sort of check and balance discernment this usually ends up being aligned only with my own will.)

So in the end, I think I’ve convinced myself that security isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Instead the life of faith is a sort of falling into the arms of God – with the emphasis on falling. For many years I’ve been fond of an image of Kierkegaard’s (which probably means I don’t have it quite right anymore – but I’ll stick with it anyway). We fall into an abyss, and most pray that God will catch them before they hit bottom, but the wise understand that instead God has removed the bottom.

How Do We Respond to Illegal Immigration?

2009-02-23T10:40:00.001-08:00

A Letter to the Editor in today's Everett Herald commented that the writer knew how President Obama could come up with, I believe, 20,000 jobs immediately. He could simply round up all illegal immigrants and send them back to their countries of origin, if you will.

That raised a question. Would you please refresh our collective memories as to the position our Bishop Boerger made public within the past year or so? I seem to recollect him stating, to paraphrase, that we Lutherans are of an immigrant church, or we Lutherans are an immigrant people, and to that extent, we are more likely "with them than against them". Please comment.....

Over the years I’ve heard Lutheran’s characterized as WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), and the Lutheran Church called a “Main-Line” denomination. Neither characterization is true.

Lutheran roots include folks from Saxony, but have precious little to do with the “Anglo” part of the equation. And “Main-Line” really is a reference to the protestant denominations that originated in the Great Britain: Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians.

While there were Lutherans in North America from the beginning of the European influx (and a Lutheran or two signing the Declaration of Independence), the Lutheran church in America has been, until the last 60 years, an immigrant church and its members have been on the edges of the main stream of culture and power. The world wars of the last century sent Lutherans (a great many of whom worshipped in languages other than English) scrambling to prove their loyalty to the United States (that’s when American flags started showing up near Lutheran altars). To this day a lot of Lutherans I know work harder to preserve their heritage than they do to share the Gospel…worse yet, some confuse the two.

We’d do well to remember our fairly recent history as an immigrant church when we criticize new immigrants for clinging to their languages and cultures (that’s what our fore-bears did – my father, took confirmation classes in Swedish). We’d do well to remember that assimilation into a new culture is a slow process, but one in which immigrants and culture change each other. We’d do well to remember that many of our ancestors fled their homelands and sometimes the law for a chance at a better life.

Understanding and sympathy ought to characterize our response to immigrants, legal and illegal. That doesn’t mean we should dismiss the law of the land, but as Christian we are called to more than just the blind application of justice. Where compassion is called for, we should be the ones demanding it and delivering it. Like many other challenges facing our society it’s easy to call immigration an “Issue”, but as Christians (in my opinion) we aren’t about issues, we’re about people.

Why do we say catholic in the Apostles' Creed?

2009-02-09T05:25:00.000-08:00

Back in the day, Martin Luther started the Protestant Revolution, stapling his disagreements on the Catholic church's door. Since "we" separated from the Catholic church, not agreeing with what they were doing or how they were interpreting things, why, in the Apostle's Creed, do we say "I believe in the holy catholic church..."?

The Apostles' Creed dates back to more than a thousand years before Martin Luther and the Reformation. Most scholars think it originated as part of a statement made during baptisms in Rome. But that was long before there was any such thing as the Roman Catholic Church...but the churches in Rome were catholic. The word "catholic" means "for everyone", and doesn't belong exclusively to the church led by the Pope - we've just let it become that socially and culturally.

The word became attached to the church headquartered in Rome about 1000 years ago. Then there was a great theological debate between the "Greek" churches in the east and the "Roman" churches in the west. They couldn't agree on a word in the Nicene Creed. The Greek churches proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Roman churches said, "from the Father and the Son." The arguement split the Christian Church into two major groups: the Greek Orthodox (literally, the Greek church that gives glory to God the right way) and the Roman Catholic (literally, the Roman church for everybody). In a sense it was a marketing ploy.

When we say the Apostles' Creed we mean the word "catholic" in its original sense...we believe in the church for everyone...for all believers whether their Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, whatever...even those who don't belong to any church at all. Some folks would like us to use the word "Christian" instead of "catholic", but it doesn't say the same thing. Besides, we've already confessed our belief in Jesus Christ, earlier in the creed.

What Do We Do About Race?

2009-01-14T11:59:00.000-08:00

I have been reading about racism lately. Some of the things I have learned have dealt more with what the definition of 'race' is NOT, rather than what it is. All of the following are not part of the definition of 'race', but they are all generally accepted by the majority of Americans as parts of the definition. Race is NOT scientific, it is not biological, and it is not based on genetics; it is not defined by color or other physical attributes; it is not the same thing as culture, nor ethnicity, nor religious identity. So, why does our government still require each of us to declare a 'race' as part of our identity? What should faithful Christians do to help bring about a change in people's understanding?

Regardless of the conclusions of biologists and other scientists, and regardless of its arbitrariness, race is a very real facet of our very human desire to categorize things to make life manageable. Most of our “taxonomies” (our orderings of things) are arbitrary at heart, and value-neutral. The trouble is that we not only categorize, we prioritize (even more arbitrary) – in some places guinea pigs are pets, in others they’re vermin, in others they’re food…go figure. What begins in usefulness often ends in abusiveness, even systemic (and, therefore, mostly unconscious) abuse.

The beginning point may be the hardest step: confession. We need to confess our racism, especially those of us who think we’ve overcome it, dealt with it, or banished it from our thoughts and acts. The more sure we are that we don’t have a problem, the more likely it is that we express it subtly or even unknowingly.

The next step is penance: actively engaging the issue head on, naming it when we see it, and listening when others point to it.

The next step is conversation: talk to friends and family and neighbors, talk to those you’ve categorized, learn from them and let them learn from you.

Then keep repeating the steps, trusting that in Christ there really is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, white nor black nor brown nor red nor yellow. Since Jesus died and was raised for all, the least we can do is live for all.

Do we worship gold?

2008-12-22T12:02:00.000-08:00

This morning's ad by JC Penney in the Seattle Times was more than a little disturbing to me. They have all of their gold jewelry on sale, and there is a gold brick in the ad which says, "Only gold demands worship." What is going on???

What’s going on? Nothing new. JC Penny is just reminding us that idolatry is alive and well, and that idols really are of our own making.

The US Dollar is probably going to remain the principal currency of international business, but over the last two years it has lost much of its luster and a good chunk of its relative value. Stocks…well, there is much that needs to be said about stocks. Bonds used to be the safety net, but their just another form of debt and that’s a large part of what’s killing businesses right now. President Bush had it right when the debacle on Wall Street first hit the news…the economy is a house of cards. Unfortunately, most of what seems to be taking place in response is an effort to rebuild the house of cards.

So, it’s not surprising that many are turning to gold again. We tend to look for salvation from the same sources that create our problems. I’ve heard most “progressive-talk” radio hosts shilling gold on their programs – and resorting to doomsday language to do so.

Gold will save us, apparently. Not such a big leap from savior to god, after all.

But, to borrow a phrase from Wyatt Cenac (a comedian on the Daily Show), turns out gold is just a shiny metal. We’ve arbitrarily given it value, and that might be enough if our problem was only “wealth creation”. Unfortunately our problem is greed – which insists that what is truly valuable must be both difficult to obtain and easy to hoard.

The great lack of interest in the Gospel in our world is pretty understandable, then. Salvation is neither of those things. Instead salvation, the love of God, righteousness (call it what you will) is given freely at any and every time and place for any and every person. And it can’t be hoarded. Quite the contrary, it has to be given away – which is precisely where we discover its value.

Signs and Demonstrations

2008-12-08T16:47:00.000-08:00

The brouhaha in Olympia is generally dismaying to me. As a Christian pastor I really couldn’t care less about the sign posted by an atheist organization as part of the “holiday” seasonal display. I fail to see the way in which it is any more inflammatory in relationship to Christmas than is a Jewish menorah, or some reminder of the Islamic season of Eid al-Adha, since both Judaism and Islam deny the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ being the Son of God. All in all the first amendment to the U.S. constitution should have been enough to keep critics quiet grumbling at most.

But, said amendment was insufficient. Sadly, so also was the gospel that so many seemed to ignore even while they were claiming to protect it. The protests seemed to be characterized by legalism, judgmentalism, rancor, incivility, an embarrassing lack of grace, and an equally embarrassing lack of understanding of how to open the ears and touch the hearts of those with whom one disagrees (call that “how to” true evangelicalism).

To the best of my knowledge Christianity has never really needed defenders, it has wanted only for disciples. The past week in Olympia – the furor on Fox News – has only proven that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord”, has a clue.

What do you tell people who are having fears about the financial crisis?

2008-11-15T08:26:00.000-08:00

As a pastor what do you tell people who are having fears about the financial crisis and (unofficial) recession? How do we keep from hoarding and still find ways to give?

I think the first thing I’d say is I understand, like many my retirement plan has taken a devastating hit. And it isn’t just the $ results – advice from those entrusted with our funds has seemed to be of no more value than my own uneducated guessing – the response of our government seems slow, puzzling, expensive, and inconsistent. Trust has been ruptured at a number of levels. So, I get it.

Fear is something we need to face on a couple of levels – the very practical and the heart.

At the very practical level it good to sit down and take a thorough look at personal finances. You need to know what you’re spending and where. The vast majority of people are more than capable of living within their means and addressing their debts effectively. The easiest, and best piece of advice I know is stop buying on credit and start saving even if you can only save a tiny amount at this point. Choose to control what you can – it will help your finances and your heart.

Don’t be afraid to seek advice, in fact, make a point of it. God has surrounded us with people of compassion, understanding, and willingness to help. This is all the more important if you are someone facing job loss, income reduction, foreclosure. Don’t go it alone.

At the heart level, the practical stuff has a big payoff. Knowing what we face and what our resources are (money and community), is a significant reminder that God meets us in the midst of our lives. It’s also a good idea to get in touch with our elders…these aren’t the first trying times, stories of strength and purpose abound – and inform. The people of God have a history of generosity even in the most difficult times and knowing that history can keep us generous in our difficult times.

At a personal level, my family and I have been through lots of challenges over the years – two extended periods of my unemployment, a reduction of our income by ¾ during our seminary years, three times congregations have withheld my salary for more than 30 days because of financial straits. Through them all God has taken care of us – family, friends, congregations, strength we didn’t know we had…grace showed up in ways we never expected.

Knowledge, choices, community, and faith…that’s how we get through.

What's the difference between a beliver and an atheist?

2008-11-13T08:37:00.000-08:00

This piggybacks on to the "what's the point of church?" question.
If grace and justification by faith are completely free gifts bestowed upon us by God; if even the means of accepting the grace (which would be faith) is given to us, and we are responsible for absolutely nothing because God chooses to see us righteous anyway, then what is the difference between believer and non-believers? In other words, what is the difference between me and the champion atheist, Richard Dawkins?

My first inclination is to ask, “Why does there need to be a difference?”
My second inclination is to say, “The believer believes, the atheist doesn’t.”

I know really wonderful people of every stripe – people who are generous, concerned with justice, and by any account loving. As a person of faith I celebrate that. As Paul recommends in Philippians 4.8, “Finally, beloved,* whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

The difference is simply faith, I think. But I also think it’s a mistake to try and one up non-believers. Faith, we must admit, is non-rational by definition – we are given an ultimate reference point for our living and dying. The Christian story is filled with things reason would have us leave behind – virgin birth and resurrection chief among them.

Of course, the rational life, which is what folks like Dawkins and Sam Harris (and before them Ayn Rand and the “objectivists”) promote has its challenges, too. True atheism admits of no ultimates: there is no good or evil – the value of humanity or life or social order, or reason, or even self when named as “good” are just arbitrarily chosen. Logical arguments can of course be made for them, but equally logical arguments can be made against them. I haven’t read Dawkins, but most “atheists” don’t go that far and substitute a “natural” ultimate for religion’s “supernatural” one. In the end, they still operate a form of chosen, arbitrary faith.

Let me offer a different angle, too.

Not long ago I surveyed all the mentions of death by Jesus. What I discovered is that Jesus normally speaks of death as form of truncated living – it is a present experience of those without faith. His point is that those who do not believe miss the depth of relationship (and mutual accountability!) that exists for people of faith. Of course, that relationship includes both other human beings (and against all reason, even gentiles and enemies!), and God.

But, I want to be cautious here and distinguish between faith and religiosity. There’s no reason, and certainly no evidence, that faith is a guarantee of depth of relationship and accountability. It is more than easy for faith to become nothing more than religiosity - a form of spiritual/divine/eternal self-interest. Enlightened or not, rational or not, self-interest is not relational in the deep sense of the word. Such self-interest always has my own good as the ultimate value.

Frankly, I think it’s religiosity, and its outward form religion, that Dawkins and company are actually upset about. I’m not suggesting that religions are a bad thing, just easily corrupted. Organization and ritual inherently lead to power structures, power structures inherently lead to the seeking of power, the seeking of power inherently leads to a “what’s in it for me” attitude. And religion becomes, then, nothing more than a means to an end.

But, faith as I understand it is not a means to an end, it is a beginning point, or more accurately, a freeing point. That freedom is freedom from self-interest, from sterile rationalism, and from worrying about what’s the difference between me and anybody else.

What do make of the parable of the bridesmaids?

2008-11-10T18:21:00.000-08:00

After reading a commentary and listening to a whole group of people trying to make sense of Matthew 25: 1-13 (the story of the wise and foolish bridesmaids) , I don’t see where there is a hint of anything but each person being responsible for being alert (staying in relationship with God every minute) and not depending on anyone else but oneself. There are those who say the lamp/oil/flame/light refer to the Holy Spirit. Matthew is the only place where this parable exists, although Mark and Luke also talk of the Son coming unexpectedly and we should be awake. Presumably he was speaking to the disciples. This parable, along with others in Matthew, seems to require so much of believers, without noting that it can’t be done by humans and that it is God that comes to us, that I just can’t understand what it is I should get out of this. This does not foster a lot of hope. It seems that it shouldn’t be read without reading some other passages that would pretty much contradict it. What do you make of this parable?

All in all the question points to one of the important reasons for reading the whole bible and letting scripture interpret scripture. No one piece is a stand-alone, be-all and end-all, statement of the faith. The various books were written at different times, to different people, with different purposes in mind and questions to be answered. (Perhaps I need to add that is the glory of the inspiration of Scripture not an argument against it.)

The Gospel of Matthew is a wonderful example of that diverse inspiration. It’s fairly common to speak of it as the most Jewish of the gospels, and was likely written specifically for a Christian community that was dominantly Jewish, not Gentile. Portions of the Gospel, like the Sermon on the Mount, clearly point to deep sensitivity to the Torah – the Law – and to the call to both individual and community obedience.

But even then the Gospel of Matthew points us beyond a works oriented sense of grace and salvation. In Matthew 19.26, following the meeting between Jesus and the rich man, Jesus says salvation is impossible for human beings but not for God. Certainly a different picture than the one referenced in the question.

For me, the beginning point is grace – as I understand it that is the point of the incarnation-crucifixion-resurrection. So, the parable of the wise and foolish bridesmaids is less about earning one’s salvation than it is about understanding the comprehensive nature of faith. Faith is not a mental thing, a set of ideas to which we assent, or a set of values applied to certain portions of our lives and not to others. So, in my thinking, the parable points to disciples (friends of the groom) who essentially decide to quit being disciples except when it’s convenient. It isn’t about those who don’t qualify for salvation, but those who walk away from it.

But, do keep in mind that Peter and James and John and all the rest of the apostles, turned and ran and hid, and yet found welcome in the arms and grace of Christ – and work to do in Christ’s church.

Why does the church or God matter?

2008-11-06T07:59:00.000-08:00

Jesus reminds us that the 2 greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. Salvation seems to be for something beyond personal peace and wholeness: it encompasses all people and creation. How is the work of the church in serving your neighbor different from a social group that does similar work for the good of others and creation? In short, if you can get the same results "without God," then why does the church or God matter??
[The best thoughts I could come up with for what makes the church/God important were: providing a network for people when they need personal care, energy sourced from God's gifts and power (not just humanity), and addressing the need for reconciliation and wholeness.]

I feel pretty safe in saying that loving our neighbor is, in fact, loving God. It is a reflection, the most precise reflection, of God – self giving. I think that’s what Jesus’ meant us to understand when he articulated love of neighbor as part of the great commandment. I think it’s also what he was telling us in the final judgment scene in Matthew 25. There the nations=gentiles=non-believers gather, and Jesus affirms and welcomes those who love their neighbors as those who love him.

But, let’s be cautious here. The question brings out some related, and, I think, dangerous issues. First, is the danger of wanting to be “better than”. Second, is the danger of wanting a reward. Third is the danger of wanting to “earn” salvation. I suppose we could sum them all up in the familiar question, “what’s in it for me?”

1) The notion that Christians are better than others is really at odds with the call to be a servant - which is at the core of being Christian. Serve those in need and celebrate when others serve those in need, that seems to be Jesus’ message. Our relationship with Jesus doesn’t make us better than others, if anything it reveals to us how much (for good and for ill) we are like everyone else.
2) Service is our calling, it is a reflection of who we are. The “reward” of service is getting to know our truest self, to be who God created us to be. To seek any other kind of reward is to turn service into self-service (which is just a spiritual form of greed).
3) We want our work to be valuable; the challenge is to come to grips with our work not earning our salvation. What our work earns is justice, hope, healing, welcome, for someone else. It just isn’t about us.

I’m mindful of a story about one of Augustine’s visions. In the vision he saw a woman (as I recall) with a torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other. He asked her what they were for, and she replied, “the water is to quench the fires of hell and the fire is to burn the glories of heaven, so that humanity might learn to love God for God’s sake alone.” What a thing to imagine a life of faith driven neither by fear of punishment nor longing for reward but simply by the love of God.

As a gathering of servants I suppose it’s natural for the church to want to take on the role of social service agency. As a gathering of people working to be our best selves it’s natural to want to be recognized as being better. As a gathering of people with a unique vision of wholeness – of salvation – it’s natural to claim that it’s uniquely ours. But the call of God is beyond nature and beyond reason. Why does God matter? Because God is God. Why does the church matter? Because we’re the ones who intentionally bear that message into the world and who consciously reflect that message when we love our neighbors simply because they are our neighbors.

Aren't we supposed to do more than just pray?

2008-11-05T12:23:00.000-08:00

I know that epistles such as 1 Peter are eschatological, expecting soon the coming of God's kingdom. But how are we to understand in today's world such passages as 2:18-3:6, where we are all encouraged to fit into the structures of society as a testimony to faith? Didn't Jesus demonstrate just the opposite message? When society is unjust, when those who govern are oppressive, doesn't Jesus ask us to do more than just pray for his coming?

I think the notion that Jesus was a social revolutionary – someone who wanted and worked to subvert or invert or undo the dominant social order – is a very 20th century imposition. I can’t think of an instance in which Jesus himself points to that kind of change or disruption. Instead, it seems to me, he called people into full relationship across the social structure. It was more, much more, a matter of honor, than of our notion of equality. Honor could be had by anyone at any level by living out one’s relationships (familial, social, economic) with love of neighbor.

The writers of the New Testament operate in the same mindset. The idea was to repair the brokenness of the system, reorient it with God at the lead, not to replace the system. What we see as a sort of “quietism” in 1Peter (et al.) was in that system an activist/revolutionary approach.

Having said all that, let me also say that the system has changed – and our roles within the system have changed. In a system like American democracy, in which WE ARE the government and in which our role is to direct the government, and in which honor looks the same at every level, we have a Christian obligation to work to change the system whenever and wherever it is oppressive. To sit back and not challenge the system, in our setting, is to turn our backs on our role and our faith.

The gospels and epistles don’t present us with a picture of the social order for which we should strive or which we should imitate. Instead they give us a call to a faith-filled response to the brokenness of the social order. Social orders and roles change, the call doesn’t.

An Appeal - A Special Second Posting for 11/4/2008

2008-11-04T08:34:00.000-08:00

I’ve been watching and been appalled by the recent television ads place by the GOP Trust. The ads feature sound bites of Rev. Wright (Barack Obama’s former pastor) condemning America and point to Obama then as being both radical (explicitly) and anti-American (implicitly). This out of context sensationalizing on the part of the GOP Trust is heartbreaking and offensive.

The ad betrays at best a willful ignorance of American history and society, and at worst, racism. It betrays a lack of understanding of the Bible, the prophets, Scriptural principles of justice, and the unique role of preachers in African American church in particular, and the Christian church in general.

I would hope that Christians of every political stripe would raise a voice of outrage with the GOP Trust for raising again a false issue that John McCain himself dismissed much earlier in the campaign.

Was Jesus a Socialist?

2008-11-04T08:16:00.000-08:00

Was Jesus a socialist?

It’s not likely that any of our political labels and “isms” can accurately be applied to Jesus: his socio-political-economic world was decidedly different.

Ancient Mediterranean culture was a patronage system. From peasant to Caesar a line could be traced patron to patron. At each level the patron had an accountability to care for those immediately beneath him. When it worked, and when drought or disease was not a factor, it was an effective system for distributing goods and assuring that no one went hungry.

In Jesus’ day, however, the system in Judea was falling apart. Landowners, the temple class (priests, rulers, Sadducees), and the tax collectors began to withhold wealth from those beneath them in the system. Greed, preservation of power, and currying favor with the Romans dominated their concerns.

Jesus’ early proclamation seems mostly to be calling people (as John the Baptist did) back to their proper relationships. It seems to me that over time Jesus’ proclamation expands and shifts to the creation of a new system – still a patronage system – inclusive of gentiles with ultimate patronage (not simply spiritual) from God. Even, Jesus’ use of the word “abba”/father for God points to this: in his day the word did not mean “daddy”, it was an honorific title for one’s patron.

But it should be noted that Jesus does call for “the acceptable year”, which is to say the year of jubilee. In that year, all loans are wiped off the books, and property lost because of debt default is returned to its owner. So, there is a redistribution of wealth but only in order to restore the patronage system.

Neither socialism nor the free market nor democracy can make a direct claim on Jesus. His interest it seems to me is not that we level the field but that wherever we are in society we act in the interest of those whose lives and livelihoods depend upon us – and not just our immediate families but our neighbors, even if they are our enemies.

Why do we cede the soapbox to the moralists?

2008-11-03T13:10:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama mentioned it in his speech last night at his rally in Florida. In addressing the charges that he was a "redistributionist" (nee socialist) he said "his Bible" tells him that he is to care for others, that he is his brothers keeper. OK that's a whole different question too, (was Jesus a socialist). But my now question is this: Why given that the Evangelical Right is not afraid to preach political practice from the pulpit, the more mainstream and Lutheran perspective is that such preaching should be avoided. In the public eye, why do we cede the soapbox to the moralist's when it seems the real message should be helping our brother/sister?

A couple of different answers come to mind.

First, I think of most of my preaching as political. Not. though, in the sense of pointing to particular candidates or referenda and saying, “this one not that one”. It is my assumption, and sometimes my explicit statement, that the faith I proclaim and encourage cannot be separated from our social/political lives.

But it’s fair to say that most Lutheran preachers stay away from specifics. The pragmatic, if shallow, end of the issue is that if a preacher goes too far a congregation can lose it’s non-profit status. It’s part of the great American idea of separation of church and state.

Still the issues are significantly deeper. Many pastors operate with premise that two people of good faith reading the same text may well come to different interpretations and different ways of applying the text in their lives. Some read, “you shall not kill” and determine that a life of pacifism is the call, others read it and determine that the commandment leaves room for military service, capital punishment, etc. Some read “Love your neighbor as yourself” and conclude that government is a tool for accomplishing that work, while others interpret it to be a strictly person to person sort of work. As a pastor I can render my interpretation, make a case for why it’s my interpretation, but I won’t tell you that my interpretation is the only acceptable one. As a pastor I see my work as helping people on their journey, not making others take mine.

There’s a piece of Lutheran history at work as well. During the 1st and 2nd World Wars American Lutherans became loathe to discuss politics in the church. Why? Many congregations still worshipped and held meetings in their Germanic languages which invited speculation that the congregations were secret Nazi cells. Worship languages changed to English, the American flag appeared near the altar, and political issues were relegated to living rooms and kitchens.

On top of that Lutheran teaching has long held that governments – all governments – get their authority from God and are charged with keeping social order. The church it has been believed has every right and every obligation to talk with political leaders as individuals (to call them to faithfulness) but has no right to intervene on the larger scale. Martin Luther in particular saw the job of government as preserving order, saying at one point, “better a competent Turk as leader than an incompetent Christian.” (Turk was the generic name applied to Muslims.) (That was a go-to quote of mine during the Pres. Clinton impeachment process.)

So, there are a variety of reasons we don’t turn the pulpit into a bully-pulpit. Of course I have my opinions and my favorite candidates and I gladly share them with those who ask, just not from the pulpit.

As to the Evangelical right…since that does grow largely out of the Baptist tradition they come with a view of the government as the enemy of the church. Their rise to power and influence, combined with the odd notion that America is the new promised land/new Israel has led (as power does) to a profound desire to be in control and to restore America as a “Christian Nation” (whatever that is). The desire for power and the belief that power is a right, create a lot of energy for outspoken arrogance.

(I'll pick up "was Jesus a socialist?" next time.)

What about abortion and the ELCA?

2008-10-31T06:49:00.000-07:00

Having been watching the political campaign for a long while there have been some disturbing things that have come to my attention which I feel I should ask about before I decide to take action.

A few months ago there were some issues brought up in a book by some nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago. A presidential candidate from there (this will be my last political input about that). To make a too long story to the point, myself being pro life, but am pragmatic on the issue except for extreme cases. I found that Christ Hospital has for a long time been doing live birth abortions. This is a procedure that in late term pregnancy labor is induced the baby is birthed alive and left to die of exposure on a table or in a closet, and not given life saving procedures. Some of these nurses, against hospital regulations, held these babies until they passed away, sometimes these babies lived for 36 hours. At the time I thought, ok so? Then I learned that the ELCA funds this hospital and has a lot to say about its procedures and regulations. Thinking that this may be just an anomaly I found that these procedures were quite common in ELCA run hospitals and the ELCA is a big advocate for abortion in general. Is this True? Being a New member at Trinity, but nearly a life long Lutheran I am trying to get my arms around the big tent concept. Ok, I have raised my tolerance about things that rub me. But I don’t think "The Devil" should be in the tent. How can I morally justify putting in even a penny that may make its way through the bureaucracy to one of these operations. Tell me where I am wrong.

Let’s get the political bit out of the way. I’ve read both candidates position papers thoroughly. While both parties have engaged in the sadly normal process of taking things out of context, Sen. Obama’s views have been pretty thoroughly twisted/misrepresented in relationship to the abortion issue. The primary difference between the two candidates on the topic is: who should make the laws, the nation or the states?

I’ve researched the hospital and the incidents to which you’ve referred. There’s very little available that comes from reliable sources. What I can gather is that 7 to 9 years ago the Chicago Tribune ran a couple of articles about questionable abortion procedures at the hospital. There have been no articles/reports since that I can find in their archives. (I do know that throughout human history, including the first half of the 20th century in America it was a very common practice – in hospitals of all sorts – to set aside and not care for infants with severe deformities like hydrocephaly, anacephaly, spina-bifida, etc.) As I understand it, then and now, Illinois law required humane care for infants born with fatal deformities/conditions. I can find no evidence that the practices you mention have continued.

The hospital you mention is part of a system that receives financial support from two church bodies, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ. The churches do not dictate medical policy, nor do they review every procedure that takes place. But the denominations have some part in the on-going shaping of policy and on the ethics panels that review difficult cases of all types. I cannot imagine, and can find no evidence, that the practices you mention were ever condoned, much less encouraged by either denomination.

The ELCA does not and never has advocated abortion. You can find the ELCA Social Statement on Abortion at www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Abortion.aspx The ELCA understands abortion to be an option of last resort and an option that when chosen calls us to turn to God’s mercy and care. It may be the best of bad choices in certain circumstances, but to suggest that the ELCA holds it to be a good choice or promotes it is not just false but ridiculous.
Finally, a comment about the Big Tent. The “Big Tent” notion of church is rooted in the belief that people of good conscience, good effort, and faithful discipleship may read Scripture and come to different conclusions on the Christian approach to just about every issue. The Big Tent is about faithful dialog and genuine respect. One of the Lutheran points that we do insist upon is that we are all at the same time sinners and saints. Not one of us can claim to be “pure” in our understanding, behavior, attitude or faith. So to that extent, you can’t keep the devil out of the tent…but we are confident that Christ and the Holy Spirit are there, too, and they always get the last word.

Why don't we keep Bibles in the pews?

2008-10-29T07:42:00.000-07:00

Why don't we keep Bibles in the pews? Our pastor was preaching last week from Colossians-- Let the Word dwell in you richly. And it re-occurred to me that it really bothers me that we don't keep the foundation of our faith within easy reach of whomever is sitting there. Is it a Lutheran thing?

Great question…in the past I’ve had visitors walk out even before a service started when they saw that none of “the regulars” had brought their bibles, and others never came back because there weren’t bibles in the pews. All in all it seems pretty surprising that in the denomination that placed the bible in the hands of the people it would be a rare sight to see someone bringing their own. In most churches with bibles in the pews, likewise, you’ll find those bibles virtually untouched.

First, a little history.

The Bible was originally a book meant to be heard more than read. The cultures in which the books of the bible originated were oral/story telling cultures. Paul alludes to this when he says, “faith comes through what is heard.” (Romans 10.17) The truth is literacy was quite limited until very recently: during the development of the American West it was not uncommon for the pastor and the doctor to be the only “readers” in a town. The habit of listening to the pastor read the bible became an ingrained practice and persisted even when literacy spread.

Which takes us to another element of the issue. There was a time when independent bible reading and bible study was discouraged by the Lutheran church. Why? To keep doctrine pure and people on track. It doesn’t take long to discover that the Bible is a complicated set of books with varying images of God, words with multiple possible definitions, stories with a wide variety of possible interpretations. Pastors are specifically educated to work with those issues, so it was assumed that the pastors should be the only ones to do so. Why read the bible when every Sunday morning the pastor will tell me what I need to know and make sure I don’t go astray?

Times have changed. Just about everyone reads. We’re not used to just listening or learning by just listening. The pastor’s interpretation of scripture, so far as I can tell, is broadly considered to be no more than her/his opinion on the matter and no more or less accurate than anyone else’s. Doctrinal purity is not a particular concern of most people in the pews, and there is broad disagreement among the clergy. And, there are a great many different translations of the bible available (the text you read at home may well sound quite different at worship).

There’s also the Lutheran (among others) tradition of the use of the bible in worship and preaching. We predominantly use the “lectionary” a planned series of readings designed to do two things. 1) In the course of the three year cycle to read the majority of scripture in our Sunday services. 2) To prevent pastors from sticking with their favorite/comfortable texts and topics. It’s recent, but already a tradition, to print in the bulletin/worship folder the texts referenced for a particular Sunday.

Finally, and perhaps sadly, in more than one church, pew bibles have been rejected because, “the book racks are already full with hymnals and we don’t want to clutter things up or reduce the number of seats by putting bibles there.”

So…some suggestions.
Try just listening – there’s a unique power to the spoken word.
Bring your own bible if reading along, or referencing during a sermon or song is helpful.
Let your pastor know you’d use a bible if one were provided in the pews, or made available on the way into worship.

How do you forgive yourself?

2008-10-28T11:38:00.000-07:00

How do you forgive yourself? (for things you did/choices you made that you can't undo or for circumstances you couldn't control that contributed to your present situation of regret/failure) or maybe better phrased as, How do you live with the consequences of life when you know you had a part in how things turned out?

I suppose I think of forgiveness as mode of intentional learning – which is anything but forgetting, by the way. (Let God do the forgetting). Discerning what went “wrong” is a key element of maturing, letting that discernment shape our behavior is maturity. In counseling I often describe forgiveness as an on-going conversation in which one person says, “I’m sorry I hurt you, I don’t want it to happen again.” and the other says, “Me too, but I’ll work with you to see it doesn’t.”
The trouble with self-forgiveness is that we tend to have the conversation with ourselves.

That’s at least one of the points where Jesus comes in. We really only rarely forgive ourselves. Behavior patterns, learned and “rewarded” is myriad ways simply get a hold of us and our thinking and try to insulate us from self-critical thinking. Jesus walks us through the barriers, his presence, the stories of his ministry, his death and resurrection all point to a practice of self-critique in the light of grace. In his presence, those choices and circumstances that have misdefined and misdirected our lives never get the last word.

As for circumstances that are genuinely out of our control, or not the result of our choices, we respond. God quit asking for perfection some time ago. God simply asks for us, as we are, where we are. Jesus died for us, as we are, where we are. The Spirit comes to us, as we are, where we are. Even when we can’t find a way to forgive ourselves the forgiveness of God is with us.

What happens when you don't have an answer?

2008-10-23T10:02:00.000-07:00

What happens when you don’t have an answer?

Who else but one of my daughters would ask such a question? They know me well enough to know of the places I fall silent and the questions that leave me searching. They know all too well that sometimes the only answer I can muster is, “I don’t know.”

Maybe I don’t say that enough. It’s so easy in the pastor business to buy into the notion that I’m the one with the answers.

Over time, though, I’ve come to understand answers quite differently than I used to. From my perspective I only provide attempts at answers – everything is provisional. Our words, my words are never enough to do any more than to paint a shadow of a mist of a guess at a confession that I make in the face of the completely indescribable. Honestly, I’m becoming more and more “convinced” that we should embrace the grand Jewish tradition of humbly writing G*d, instead of presuming to add a vowel and name the un-nameable.

I think, too, that my hope in answering questions isn’t to stop the asking but to expand it and encourage it. G*d seems to have formed us each quite uniquely, which I suspect (but only suspect) means each of us has a unique relationship with G*d. Certainly, it seems that Jesus had a different relationship with Peter than with John than with James. Each of them expressed their faith, lived their faith in different ways – why would it be any different with us?

So after four paragraphs it probably looks like I yet again have an answer. But I look at them and see nothing but more questions. “Just Keep Asking” is more than the name of this blog and more than a way of inviting others to share their questions. It really, at heart, is what I understand to be the work of faith.

Is there a genetic link to our spirituality?

2008-10-20T19:07:00.000-07:00

In the book "Why We Believe What We Believe" the author suggests that there may be some genetic tendencies to spirituality. Of the subjects used for brain activity studies there were nuns, Buddhists, and an atheist, all who meditated. The atheist even used the Michelangelo's image of God for his meditation, although for him, God was just a fantasy. He had been meditating this way for many years, and God continued to remain a fantasy. So, my question is: What do you think about the possibility of some genetic link to our spirituality? If not in whether or not we possess it, the degree to which it is felt or exhibited? Obviously, whether one is Christian or Muslim or any other religion would likely be more a family or social learning or a choice at some point.

A couple of years ago I read a book titled, Why God Won’t Go Away. The premise of the book, by two physicians teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, is that we are, so to speak, “wired” to believe in God. Studying the architecture, function, and processes of the brain, they conclude that human beings are built to look for absolutes. I might say it differently – human beings seem to be meant to search for/create meaning.

I doubt that we’ll get direct proof of such “wiring”, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling – from ancient cave paintings to the search for a “unified field theory” in contemporary physics. The human quest for meaning is no longer limited to religious expression, but it seems to me that the quest has religious elements no matter what the field. Faith is present – not as the certainty of an answer to the question, but as the certainty that the question is worth asking. For me that’s the real depth of faith wherever it shows up.

Why are the 10 Commandments considered so "sacred" to so many Americans?

2008-10-16T08:45:00.000-07:00

Why are the Ten Commandments considered so "sacred" to so many Americans? Why do so many feel that these words deserve a prominent place in public buildings? If the law truly exists to show us our sin, and if the life, death and resurrection of Jesus not only fulfilled the law, but provide us the path to salvation, why do Americans seem to want to make the Ten Commandments into a god? Also, why are there two ways of numbering the commandments among Christians? Some say 'no idols' is number 2, others include it tacitly as part of number 1. Then the first group combines into number 10 what the second group divides into 9 and 10. How did this come about?

While I think it would be difficult indeed to find Christians who would disagree with the statements, “the law shows us our sins” and “the life, death and resurrection of Jesus not only fulfilled the law, but provide us a path to salvation”. But there are a lot of interpretations of what those statements mean. A great many Christians believe that confession (our response to the Law showing us our sins) + grace (the forgiveness we have in Christ) = our ability/responsibility to obey the law as the path to salvation. Others view grace as the gift that allows/empowers us to obey the Law as our path to salvation. So, in the end, the Law remains the path to salvation, or at least the path of salvation. Even some, “grace alone, faith alone” Lutherans point to what’s called the “Third Use of the Law” to claim the 10 Commandments and the rest of biblical Law as the guide or measure of faith filled living.

So, if someone believes the Law is the measure/the path/the means of salvation it is no surprise that it is considered sacred. The observation that some want to turn the 10 Commandments into a god is a really interesting one. Christians seem to be prone to elevating important elements of the faith (the Bible, for example) to the point of being objects of worship – which is idolatry.

The desire to have the 10 Commandments displayed in public/governmental places is probably rooted in at least a couple of things. One is anxiety over the changing morality of society. Just about everyone strives to preserve what makes them comfortable. So, the effort to publicly post the 10 Commandments is an effort to stand against the changes.

Another is the belief by many that America is a “Christian nation” and that our legal system is founded upon Judeo/Christian tradition in general and the 10 Commandments in particular. (An argument can certainly be made for that, but it probably ignores the enormous influence of the 17th and 18th century philosophers who spoke passionately for a morality based in enlightened self-interest – a decidedly unchristian notion.) This, too, I think is really about anxiety – this time over America’s loss of stature as an economic and moral superpower.

As for the organization of the “10”. Here I think it’s another interpretive issue. Roman Catholics and Lutherans put “you shall have no other gods” and “you shall not make any graven images” together because they both talk about idolatry. So, to get 10 we have to have 2 anti-coveting commandments one for spouses, and one for property. Others say, essentially, that coveting is coveting, so, they break up the idolatry pieces. (Wikipedia has a useful article on the topic, by the way.) There’s no particular agenda behind the choices, so far as I know, but it serves as a great example of the way in which Scripture remains open and living as we apply the Word to our time and our lives.

I'm just one person, how can I make a difference?

2008-10-15T11:11:00.000-07:00

I'm just one person. How can anything I do make a dent in the suffering/need of this world? What about all the people/situations I can't get to or help?

One of the most wonderful things about Jesus, whom we confess to be savior of the world, is that he worked person to person. He healed the sick, he did not destroy sickness. He forgave Zacheous, the woman caught in adultery, Peter, those who crucified him. He called Peter and Andrew and James and John, not fisherman in general. His proclamation is for all, but hearing is one by one.

Perhaps that’s why he called us to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength and then equated that love with loving our neighbor as ourselves. Neighbor – the word in scripture means the one near to us.

Surely, God’s love is meant for all. And just as surely our technological age has brought so many more people within reach. And even more surely we should be conscious of the ways in which our American system of excess consumption of goods and resources can have horrendous consequences – and we should work, as Christians, to change that system. But the heart of our call is to work person to person.

The problems we face are enormous. The needs of others are daunting. But the role of savior has already been filled – we are his coworkers, his hands and feet. Some are called to change systems, but most of us are called to reach out simply to the ones near to us, person to person.

[On a very personal note, I’d like to commend an organization called KIVA to you all. KIVA is a micro-lending organization, providing financing for individuals striving for sustainable livelihoods in developing nations. You can find it at www.kiva.org]

What do we do with God in the Old Testament?

2008-10-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

How do we reconcile the seemingly angry and militant God in the OT with God in the NT as loving and gracious as revealed in Christ? Did God make a 180 change? [Now I haven't read all the OT, but I know lots of wars happened and tons of people died. Not all that different from life today. Maybe that's the point--God wasn't so much a warlord, but trying to work with obstinate people who seemingly have the memory span of a fish (at the least selective) and being self-involved creatures of the earth, they pursue and seek each others' blood.]

First of all, I really recommend reading the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures. It is startlingly complex and often startlingly beautiful along with everything else. Reading it also reveals a wide variety of images and understandings of God.

Second, read some of the novels that work hard to shed light on life in the days of the Old Testament. James Michener’s “The Source”, though published in 1965, still offers wonderful insight. Or try Frederick Buechner’s “Son of Laughter” or “On the Road with the Archangel”.

Frankly, there’s no easy answer to this question; it has puzzled and frustrated Christians from nearly the beginning of the faith. Marcion, (110AD – 160AD) an early Christian theologian/heretic, completely rejected the Hebrew Scriptures. A lot of Christians these days follow in his footsteps by pretty much ignoring them, with exceptions made for certain Psalms and convenient passages from Isaiah and a couple of other prophets.

There are two layers to the way I get at the problem. The first is “context”. I think it is absolutely crucial to understand the various contexts of the books of the Old and New Testaments. Understandably we read it from our context, and there are a lot of church types (church growth, emergent church, etc.) that are trying to call us back to a 1st Century way of being the church. But life in 21st century North America could hardly be more different than the 1st Century Mediterranean world. It is even more different than the time of David, or Moses, or Abraham and Sarah. Knowledge, world view, social relations and conventions, power structures…everything was different. “History”, “human rights” and “the individual” as we understand them were unknown concepts. Reading Scripture as though we can simply overlay it on our world, or read it through our worldview alone, is dangerously naïve.

The plus side of delving into context for me has been a much richer application of Scripture to my life and in my work as a pastor. It has left me digging for more, not setting anything aside.

The second layer is “inspiration”. What do we mean by it? Well, I don’t mean a process of dictation, or trancelike/ecstatic writing. I understand it to mean that individuals of active faith, facing specific challenges or needs in their community of faith, were called by God to tell and write the story of God’s presence in their lives, in their communities, in their world – from their perspectives. I do not think that many were written expressly for the generations to come, but over time the generations continued to find them valuable (this is in my view the work of the Holy Spirit). As some were called to tell, and some were called to write, so we are called to discover their depth for our time.

Now, as to the violence that troubles us so much. The practices described in Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, etc. were all commonplace among the peoples of the time. Even in the time of Jesus foreigners (Canaanites, Romans, Greeks, etc.) were thought to be in some sense sub-human. (And they all felt that way about the Jews and each other.) The Hebrew tribes were no more or less violent than those around them. Such violence was part of the context of their lives and so it is a part of the context in which they interpret the presence of God. A win is a sign of God’s favor and a loss is a sign of God’s disfavor. (The remarkable thing is that the Old Testament reports both.) God doesn’t legitimate the violence of the people. The people use violence (winning and losing) to legitimate their belief in God.

It seems to me that God doesn’t shape the context, but works through it, whatever it is. And sometimes, if we’re looking, we see that God works beyond it as well: the widow of Zarephath, Ruth, Namaan, etc.

What Jesus reveals to us is not a changed God, but a humanity in need of change. The apostle Paul [with a little bit from me] put it this way: Do not be conformed to this world [or its contexts] but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12.2)

Why plan for the future?

2008-10-13T11:16:00.000-07:00

How do we live planning for a future that doesn't exist; when there are no guarantees beyond the providence for today? How do we balance the intensity of living for today with malaise of taking life for granted and the uncertainty of living dependent on the promises of God?--whether illness, death, surprises, etc. win the day.

Paul Tillich, one of the truly great theologians of the 20th century, spoke of the “eternal now”. The phrase, I think, captures the reality of our lives quite well. As I see it, what we call “the past” is what we remember (consciously, unconsciously, and subconsciously) at this moment. What we call “the future” is a sort of imagining of the unfolding of this moment.

The problem with planning, trying to structure a path into the future, or trying to structure the future itself is an attempt to stop the unfolding or at least freeze frame it for a moment. This is probably the clearest in the process we have come to call “visioning”, in which the point is to paint a picture of a “preferred” future. In our own lives we tend to call it dreaming, wishing, or life-planning. The church has really embraced “visioning”, relying on a questionable interpretation of Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The text really has nothing to do with a vision of any sort, it actually calls for seeing the events around us in the light of the Word of God.

Planning’s attempts to freeze frame life and put it in under our control, pale in comparison to the power of illness, death, surprises – and let me add – anger, fear, anxiety, loneliness. Those things invite us/drive us out of the unfolding moment into a desire for everything to just stop. We want to disengage.

But, life is relational, interactive – everything we do, think, or say, has consequences for everyone and everything else. Life is, as the questioner observes, intense. How do we face that intensity? Back to the Word of God.

For example, the Preacher in Ecclesiastes recommends that we “eat, drink, and enjoy our labor.” I like that answer because it drives us to the gifts God has given us – the provisioning of the earth, the work of our hands, the gifts of the Spirit, the Scriptures, the call to love God and our neighbor and to care for the earth, and the grace of Jesus the Christ.

Facing the intensity of life takes naming the gifts, developing the gifts, relying on the gifts, and sharing the gifts. Let me say it again. Facing the intensity of our life takes naming our gifts, developing our gifts, relying on our gifts, and sharing our gifts. And a third time. Facing the intensity of my life takes naming my gifts, developing my gifts, relying on my gifts, and sharing my gifts.

The gifts of God, recognized, named, and shared, equip us for the unfolding moment, the “eternal now”. The gifts we have been given will not stop illness, death, etc. from happening, but they will keep those events in perspective. In fact, they will help us fold those events into our unfolding lives, into our eternal now.

What happens when we die?

2008-10-10T09:29:00.000-07:00

What happens when we die? I’ve been told (by professors and texts) that we die, that's it. There's no continuing of our soul into heaven (a very Gk. idea that's infiltrated Christianity apparently) but a waiting in Christ until the resurrection. When I first heard that I couldn't live with that. It was too much to imagine that things just end. But don't we deserve that for our sin--to wait on God's promise? I'm doing better with the whole “nothing” thing as it places intense pressure on the importance of the now and not taking life for granted, and drives me toward my neighbor instead of some fanciful, ethereal ideal.

I have no idea what happens when we die – in the sense that you’re asking. Don’t get me wrong I gladly and heartily confess the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, but I don’t really know what that means.

But the underlying question I hear is, “what sort of God is God?”

Is God the sort of God that gives us a “time out”, or sends us to “the naughty spot” when we die? If that’s the case, Jesus’ death on the cross is a sort of partial atonement at best – something we have to earn our way into. I don’t recall ever believing in post-mortem penance (however that gets characterized it’s just another form of the purgatory idea).

There’s a variant of that implied in the question as well. Does the notion of a period of nothingness (pretty close to the Hebrew idea of Sheol), drive us to value today and drive us to care for our neighbor, because it’s our one chance? I think the danger there is a subtle form of enlightened self-interest (which in my book is just a social acceptable form of self-centeredness). We’re called (and in Christ, freed) to celebrate “the now” because “this is the day the Lord has made” (Psalm 118.24), it is a gift. In the same vein, we’re called and freed to care for our neighbor simply because our neighbor is our neighbor, she/he is a gift.

Beyond that though, and far more important to me, is the question, “is God limited by time and space.” The whole conversation about death, time, waiting, eternity, nothingness seems to me to depend on a god who is constrained by our understanding of “reality.” (This is where I go post-modern.) Time and space are human constructs, ideas – exceedingly powerful ideas – that help us make sense of our world. The idea of being and the idea of nothingness are the same.

Scripture, on the other hand, relentlessly witnesses to all those things being held in the hands of God. God calls into being the things that are not and reduces to nothingness things that are. Jesus reminds those that believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that God is a God of the living, not the dead. My point is that “waiting”, dead or alive, is an experience rooted in our sense of time, not in the reality of God. Eternity isn’t a long time, it’s freedom from time.

So, as I understand it, by the grace of Christ, death removes us from the grip of time and into the presence of God who is not constrained by time or space, life or death, being or nothingness – or any other of our bright ideas.

What does Christian unity look like?

2008-10-07T11:20:00.000-07:00

My question has to do with Unity in Christ. How do we justify and achieve in Scripture unity when two sides of an issue can’t budge. What does that unity look like?. Homosexuality is such an area, but other areas are: Capital Punishment, Clergy Women, Conservatism vs Liberalism, etc.

I will confess that Christian unity is a thorny issue for me. Over the last several years I’ve come to think that many who take the name “Christian” speak of God and Jesus in ways that seem to have no connection at all to my understanding of Scripture. That troubles me a lot since my faith was raised in settings that demanded doctrinal purity/agreement. My current solution to my own dilemma is to cling to the words of an acquaintance who is retired Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor: “Being right is overrated.”

Christian unity, I think, is really a question of Christian diversity and Christian action. So my questions are: Are we, the person I differ from and I, open to the belief that there is more than one legitimate interpretation of Scripture? Do our actions reflect the Gospel?

Jesus own statements on the subject can sound confusing: “whoever is not against us if for us” (Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50) and “whoever is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23). But they really point to the two key pieces of Christian unity: 1) honoring God, and 2) doing what Jesus does (in these texts, freeing someone from the grip of evil). Presumably everything else is up for grabs. I read Paul saying much the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11.19 “Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.” My ideal is a “big tent” congregation – one in which the varying interpretations can be in conversation for the purpose of enriching reflection and appreciation of diversity.

But conversing often turns into convincing, at which point reflection and appreciation are doomed to failure. We confuse sameness with unity. So, the reality is that even in unity there are issues that that may call us into different congregations – a good sign of this is when efforts to convince each other become so intense that we no longer tend to the needs of those in the grip of evil, the least among us, or the hurting and lost.

It is better to be separated and giving ourselves away for the sake of God’s children, than it is to remain together bound in conflict. The latter neither honors God, nor echoes the work of Jesus. What does unity look like in that case? Let me borrow from my marriage counseling work: unity is expressed not by what we say to each other when we are together, but how we talk about each other when we are apart.

Nature or nurture? Does it make a difference?

2008-10-06T08:45:00.000-07:00

The question came from me from someone who had been in a conversation about homosexuality. The point of one of the participants seems to have been that if homosexuality can’t be demonstrated as genetic in origin it can be freely condemned as sin – so what they were saying is that any sort of genetically based human variation is “sin free” (which as I understand it is a core understanding of the Roman Catholic church, and many “evangelical” churches).

Honestly, the whole nature/nurture battle seems totally beside the point.

It has been fairly well documented that men are genetically programmed to have children with as many different mates as possible. Would that make promiscuity permissible? (Isn’t that what we’ve done with the advent of serial-monogamy?) We are genetically programmed to eat when food is available so that we’re physically prepared when food isn’t available. Does that make gluttony okay?
I’ve yet to meet a heterosexual couple whose sexual relationship was free from sin – who are we to point fingers at homosexual couples?

My understanding of sin is that it is a description of the human condition itself – which includes our physical reality (from our genetics, to our instincts, to our inability to actually know another person), and our social reality (from the lessons we learn at home and school, to the pressures to conform to social norms, to the hurts we encounter as we participate in society). So to claim purity for genetics, and place the full weight of sin on behavior is just a way for the “pious” to point fingers. Sin is both our state of being and our way of being.

In some measure, that’s the point of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus’ rhetoric allows no escape – name calling is the equivalent of murder, lurid thoughts the equal of adultery, the only justice is forgiveness, pious proclamation is just another form of pride. And, oh yes, the law is meant to be pointed at myself not at others.

My understanding is that the church is a place for people who are seeking truth, hope, grace, peace, forgiveness, mercy, justice, Christ, God. It is the seeking that matters. Whatever stumbling blocks someone brings, we (who every moment continue to stumble ourselves) are called to walk with that person on their journey. The only finger pointing should be pointing toward Christ.

What's the point of prayer?

2008-10-02T09:51:00.000-07:00

What do you do with scripture that says "delight in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart" Ps. 37.3-7 when it’s so clear that our desires, even holy ones, often go unfulfilled?

What is prayer really about? Especially for someone who's wounded. What does it mean? What is it? Can it/How can it be a bridge for new conversation and life with God for someone in the midst of pain, anger, abandonment, fear, etc.?

I’ve combined these two questions (which are the last in my backlog) because they point to the same issue. It would be fair to say that at different times in my life I’ve held to different answers: it’s all God’s design, so live with it; if you don’t get what you want obviously you shouldn’t have wanted it, or obviously it would have been bad for you; God has something better in mind for you; God answers all prayers, but the answer can be “yes”, “no”, or “surprise” so pay attention.

As it stands now I am embarrassed to have used some of those answers (but I was young and inexperienced), and the others, it seems to me, don’t do justice to the suffering.

So what is prayer about? First of all I think it is a time of letting go – letting go of all the things that get in the way of relationship with God, including our talking, our asking, our petitions, our desires, and even our notions of what prayer is. I was going to say it was a time of setting aside – but the truth for me is that I can’t stop those things from passing through my mind, but I do not need to hang on to them while they are there. In the midst of that is a sort of silence. I say a “sort” of silence because it is in and through the silence that God “speaks”. It is the “still, small voice” that spoke to Ezekiel. That voice calls me to a place where I am not beholden to the expectations of society, church, friends, family, and self.

The beginning point is not getting what I want for myself or anyone else.

Asking, petitions, requests can only begin with Jesus’ own prayer – “your will be done.” What is God’s will? What does scripture point to? A place to stand in the chaos, community and caring, God’s own presence in wealth and poverty, sickness and health, celebration and suffering, when we turn our backs and when we give ourselves away, in our dying, and in our death, and beyond. God’s plan, so far as I can tell, is “simply” to be with us.

Promises like the one in Psalm 37 are more than balanced by the repeated cry “How long, O Lord?” One person’s healing stands in the midst of generations suffering. God is no more or less present in the one than in the other.

I do not know a “fix it” God. I do not know a God who gives us an easy path to our delights or away from our suffering. Instead, I know a God who is with us no matter what, the God who calls us to justice, compassion, and sacrificial love for each other.

What makes Christ so unique?

2008-09-29T10:18:00.000-07:00

What makes Jesus Christ so unique, important and particular if God's grace is open to everyone? How does the delivery of that message of God's love realized in Jesus Christ play out in people experiencing God's salvation?

Jesus’ uniqueness, etc. is that he delivers grace as a gift, or maybe it’s better to say he is the delivery of the gift – not just a conduit, or the means of delivery, but the actual act of giving of God’s grace. Relationship with Christ is the receiving of grace as a gift.

And lets be clear about the idea of gift. A gift is something freely given, with no conditions. If certain behaviors or thoughts are required, it isn’t a gift we receive but a payoff (you could say reward, but payoff is more honest). If something is given with “strings attached” it is a bribe. If thanks are required/expected it is no more than a transaction in which something is exchanged for affirmation of the giver. If we only accept the “gift” on our terms, we turn it into a means of control or an expression of our power over the giver.

Jesus is the giving of grace. He does not demand a certain state of mind. He does not demand that we be sinless. He does not ask us to be part of an in-group. So far as I can tell he does not require our repentance (which seems to me to be a response to the gift). He just gives himself, even unto death, and even beyond death.

I think many people, including many (most?) Christians react strongly against the gift. We want to earn our way, deserve what we get, be independent. We prefer techniques, disciplines, or at least, as some have said to me, “to unwrap the gift”. We want to be in charge at least a little bit. That’s why some are so set on the notion that salvation exists only within the Church.

But that’s precisely backwards; the Church only exists within salvation. The gift, just like the Giver, and the Giving are beyond our control. The uniqueness, importance, and particularity of Christianity is not that “we have grace and you don’t”, it is that we know, confess, and proclaim that grace is a gift wherever it shows up.

What is the point of worship?

2008-09-25T12:36:00.000-07:00

What is the point of worship? One of my friends is Presbyterian and said that reformed Presbyterians believe that "worship is glorifying God, and for Presbyterians, it's the proclaimed word of God that we are doing, as the center element in worship." Not that preaching isn't important or glorifying to God, but really, what is worship about?

I think the two questions asked are really different questions. One is about worship and one is about what we generally call a “worship service”.

Let me start with the “worship service” question. Now, first, we need to find another name for that type of gathering. “Service” in American society at least is something that is done for someone. In fact, most often it is something done by a hired hand for those unwilling to do the work themselves. Yes, I know it is also sometimes something done by a person with certain capabilities/options for those who don’t have the same capabilities/options – but that has nothing to do with worship. So there is most often a class/status/economic differential at work. But that has nothing to do with worship either – at least nothing good.

These days, our Sunday morning (typically) gatherings bear a lot of weight. They have become our excuse for Christian community, our opportunity for gathering money, our display case for children, and our substitute for adult education. Over-packed personal schedules, misdirected desire for “success” for ourselves and our children, and the need for a place that makes little or no demand on us have led us to diminish the real presence of worship in our “worship.” And finally, our severe individualism has helped us evaluate worship based on its effectiveness as personal motivation/devotion time.

Lots of people are trying lots of things to address the challenges with varying and limited degrees, I’d say, of success. Neither the new forms nor the old “ordo” (gathering – word – meal – sending) have proved to be the answer.

On to worship itself.

I understand worship to be time set aside for conscious/intentional relationship with God. That’s the point of it. Just that. The experience of honest self reflection, thankfulness, listening, and transformation (whether that self is an individual or a community) is not the point of worship, but the consequence. Word and sacrament are the gifts given by God to facilitate the relationship, the orders of worship are our efforts to do the same. Consequently, worship isn’t the set of things we do, it is the recognition that we only know who we are in the light of God’s presence.

How do we address evil?

2008-09-24T10:12:00.000-07:00

How do we talk about and address the problem of evil in the world with people who have a general consensus that:
* the devil doesn't exist or is only a metaphor,
* belief in the devil means you are flirting with dualism,
* evil can't be in us because that would make us guilty or terrible people (but it can exist in others),
* there are many choices we each make every day that ripple effects of pain and discord (which we don't want to be held responsible for),
* if you just do enough good things, it all outweighs the bad,
* some people are in bad situations because they have done many bad things (like some kind of karma effect),
* talks about a cosmic evil that is ethereal and transcendent so therefore not a personal problem or responsibility?

I may yet try to answer these questions separately but the whole thing is a good starting place for a reflection on evil. Do keep in mind that the question of evil has been asked, answered, and the answers found unsatisfactory as long as there have been human beings.

In a world that is spending billions to find the “God particle” (which by the way has nothing to do with God, creation, meaning, faith, etc. – but is just a glib scientific way to talk about a particle which speculation says ought to be there but for which there is absolutely no evidence) we shouldn’t be surprised at our difficulty with talking about the devil. Our scientific frame of reference puts the supernatural in general on the spectrum of lunacy – delusion – ignorance – fantasy - rationalization.

And frankly, scripture is not much help. We tend to identify the serpent in the Garden of Eden as the devil, but that’s an inference we make not something that scripture even implies. The book of Job presents Satan as a sort of prosecuting attorney who employs entrapment techniques with God’s blessing. By the time we get to the Revelation to John Satan has been turned into a cross between a rebellious general and a drug lord.

Compounding the issue, and maybe the worst distortion of all, comes in our own day to day conversation as we confront the terrible and the tragic. Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. all called “acts of God” in our insurance policies, and by the angry Christianist fringe who celebrate anything they can construe as punishment for sin. Friends and family of those killed by drunk drivers, accidents, criminal acts, etc. routinely speak of God loving the victim so much “He” had to call them home…even if it took such violent means. What a picture of a petty, capricious, uncaring God!

As compelling as it is to wonder, reflect, and speculate about evil and where it comes from, that wondering, reflection and speculation seem only in the end to compound it.

If I read the Gospels at all right Jesus doesn’t waste time on the “why”. Instead he persistently names evil when he sees it and acts to reveal God’s love. He doesn’t moralize or blame (think of his comments about the tower of Siloam – Luke 13). He does not exact punishment. Nor does he let anyone off the hook. He forgives those who ask for forgiveness, and ultimately those who don’t. He enters into the midst of evil and presents himself as an alternative. He gives himself into evil and rises as conqueror. He does not silence evil, but he does not give it the last word.

I think all we can say about evil (and I say it this way with my whole heart and some reluctance) is that s*** happens. The bumper stickers are theologically correct – as far as they go. To that we have to add that Christ happens, the Gospel happens, transformation happens. Our calling as Christians, to borrow from Martin Luther, is to be little Christs for our neighbors, to enact the Gospel, and to encourage, support, and sustain transformation.

Addressing evil isn’t a matter of defining, describing, convincing, or convicting…it is a matter of Christ happening through us.

Only in the incarnation?

2008-09-23T11:08:00.001-07:00

Some would say “we see the Gospel only in the incarnation of the Son of God”. How can we open the relationships with others who see the gospel through such a different lens?

I thought this follow on question from the last post was more than worth addressing before I move on. It cuts to the heart of the “one way” question.

Part of the issue I think stems from the way in which many Christian groups have stepped away from a thorough Trinitarian approach to faith. That leads them into a faith that is not so much Christ centered as it is Jesus limited.

In my previous post I’d readily, happily identify Christ as present in every instance that the Gospel is glimpsed. That’s the force of what John is saying in the 1st chapter of his Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it. (NRSV)

John continues the thought in his gospel and letters, and he is echoed by Paul and the writer of Hebrews. The same thing is what the Matthew and Luke imply in the nativity stories. This Jesus, the Christ,

Perhaps a way of talking about the issue is direction. Those who are concerned with the “one way” are thinking of our movement to Christ. I’d propose that the better way is to think if Christ’s movement toward us. So, in conversation, the common-ground-starting-place question might be, where do you see the Gospel at work? Is it in healing, is it in compassion, is it in sacrifice for the greater good – wherever those things occur? Is that the movement of the Holy Spirit in our world, in and through us?

Some I know and have met would say, no. I know of traditions that would hold that good done by anyone other than a Christian is not really good, but a sly deception by Satan. I think with such folks there simply is no common ground, no conversation. The best I can do is give thanks for their acts of compassion.

How do YOU define "gospel"?

2008-09-19T08:26:00.000-07:00

Let’s start with what I think the gospel isn’t.

It isn’t the Bible – the Bible bears witness to it, but there’s more to the Bible than the Gospel, and there’s more to the Gospel than the Bible.
It isn’t the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) – each one gives us a glimpse of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, but they aren’t the whole story.
It isn’t some form of “God helps those who help themselves”.
It isn’t a promise that you can get it right, or have it all.
It isn’t the promise of an “afterlife”.
It isn’t just a message, or a story, or news.

The gospel is an event that began before there was such a thing as time, that occurs through all time, and will continue when time is no more than a memory.

We see it most clearly in the incarnation of the Son of God, in which the God beyond all imagining became tangible, temporal, and human – and took in separation and suffering and death, giving us the gift of community and healing and life. The depth of the gift it that it is the gift of knowing the presence of God intimately and powerfully in our own life (grace and forgiveness/received faith) and seeing it in the lives of others (honor and compassion/living faith). Christ Jesus is the center of this eternal event, the living contact point with God’s gift, and lens that lets us see this gift at work.

Through Christ we can see the gospel event taking place in the creation story – God giving humanity a place to stand, God giving us to each other, God calling us to the truth that life requires life (from the simple uprooting of plants for food, to the risk of caring for each other, to the sacrifice of giving ourselves for others). Through Christ we can see it throughout the stories of the Bible.

In Christ we can see it in each other – even now the Gospel event unfolds through our stories as we respond to God’s gift, by ourselves gifting sacrificial love. In Christ we are part of the ongoing Gospel event.

My turn for a question.

2008-09-17T13:41:00.000-07:00

I probably sound like I'm ranting below - could be - but really I'm looking for answers I'm not hearing on any front. So if you have thoughts, please post a reply or at least send me an email.

It seems to me, as I have followed economic news over the years, that the Reagan approach – deregulation, tax cuts/incentives for corporations and the wealthy, open markets, de-unionizing, corporate legal status equal to or better than persons - has clearly dominated policy, even during the 8 Clinton presidency years (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO etc.). It appears as though those policies have created a climate which has highly concentrated wealth, reintroduced monopoly practices in the financial markets (the Bank America/Merrill Lynch deal is mind boggling to me) among others, radically increased foreign ownership of key American institutions (Barclays, a British bank, buys Lehman Bros. assets at less than $0.25 on the dollar), decimated financial security for the middle class, and increased insecurity for the poor.

Is the conservative view that these changes are a consequence of an evolutionary (or God ordained?) economic process and we just need to see it through? Have the Reaganomic steps that have been taken not been aggressive enough? Is the objective of the middle class downgrade part of a globalization process that will bring the American standard of living down to a level where it, in some sense, makes labor costs competitive with other parts of the world? (After all, we really can’t keep consuming at our current rate – particularly with China, India, Brazil and South Africa increasing their consumer demand). If such things are not the conservative approach/view, what is?

It seems to me that as of yesterday we’ve achieved a real semblance with many of economic conditions and structures that existed immediately before the Great Depression. I don’t have a lot of confidence in what I’m hearing from conservative politicians, but I’m not thrilled with the protectionist stuff I hear from the progressive/liberal side either. So, I’m looking for what I’m missing in the messages. Who has a clue?

This is a faith issue by the way - it's basic daily bread stuff, and it effects generations to come. My grandson was already going to be paying for the war in Iraq, now Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. How in the midst of this shall we be our brothers' and sisters' and grandchildren's keepers?

Saved? From what?

2008-09-15T14:17:00.000-07:00

Why would a postmodern young person be interested in church at all? Most youth think the lure of "salvation" is of no interest whatsoever. Salvation from what, and for what? What is salvation?

This is a great question, though I’m inclined to make one amendment. Instead of “a postmodern young person” I’d say “anybody”. Most Americans operate out of a postmodern mindset – there really are no absolutes that shape our lives. People claim to have absolute values that guide them, but are really adept at compartmentalizing when it comes to actual application. Politics, business, family life, and values (faith based or otherwise) each provide their own context. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, we’ve established that we’re hypocrites, we just keep haggling over the price.

The traditional answer to the “salvation from what” question is: sin, death, and the devil. So, how about a quick (very quick) look at those three.

1) Sin - It is a tough word to work with. We can talk about broken human nature, and for that matter, broken nature. But we our dominant mode of talking about nature is positive, it is what we try to preserve and protect, not something that needs to be fixed. It’s how we and the world were made, so let’s not fuss about it. So, if that’s out, all we’re left to talk about is the various sorts and degrees of bad behavior. The trouble with that is that outside of the really heinous, we don’t much agree on what’s bad behavior. Worse yet, the people who say their “saved” regularly show up on TV as the worst offenders. Moralizing is simple at a dead end.

2) Death - In my ministry I’ve encountered very few people who are afraid of death, whether their people of faith or not. Many are afraid of dying, to be sure, but they mostly that means they are afraid they haven’t accomplished enough, haven’t taken care of the details, or quite understandably don’t want to suffer. The grieving rarely worry about what’s happened to their deceased loved one, instead they worry about what is going to happen to themselves. The real fear is diminished living.

3) Devil - Most people just don’t buy the notion of absolute evil embodied in some sort of being who malevolently manipulates our lives so that we can spend an eternity burning in a sulfurous pit. Human beings don’t need much help coming up with evil ways to treat each other. The Australian rock group INXS said it well in their song, Devil Inside – “It’s hard to believe we need a place called hell.” (Compare that to #1, by the way. We are happy with the paradox. Consistency is not one of our requirements.)

So, what do we do now?

I’d go back to the first paragraph. One of the things we are saved from (if we dare) is the compartmentalization and hypocrisy. We are saved, to put it another way, from a life that isn’t life. What God offers in Christ is the unfragmented life – God in and through our whole life, our whole life in and through others. What the church can offer is not just a witness to a future hope of the unfragmented life, but an ongoing struggle to live it here and now.

My experience of postmodern people is that they aren’t looking for perfection. They are looking for the on-going struggle for real community, and for lessons and support that will help them join the struggle. The strength to join in the struggle and the living confidence that the struggle is worth it – that’s salvation as we can know it now. And at the end of the struggle? Life with God unfragmented, unfettered, unfailing…I think we can still call that heaven.

Had Enough?

2008-09-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

I know, two in one day... I promise I won't do this very often.

I wasn’t sure about posting this reflection. It has been on my mind for some time, though, and the recent manufactured flap over “lipstick on a pig” seems to have opened the door.

I like many am sick, really sick of the tone of political campaigns. The repeated misrepresentations officially originating from the RNC (a couple of anti-Obama ads that are patently false along with characterizations based in fear) AND ridiculously false rumors and claims from liberal bloggers and organizations (the book-banning thing is radically overblown, for example, and I recently saw a site that ask viewers to recommend a “swiftboat” styled attack on John McCain) are simply disgusting.

Anyone who has read this blog should realize that I lean to the left on political matters – though left hardly captures the range of my thoughts. But you might be surprised to know that 8 years ago I actually registered as a Republican (when our state naively required party registration to vote) specifically to vote for John McCain against George W. Bush.

From my currently unregistered (as to party, not as to voting) status, I’d like to make a recommendation.

Read the position papers of the candidates…they are readily available on line. Sen. Obama’s “Blue Print for Change” will give you a detailed view of what he is about. Sen. McCain’s site includes a thorough list of his position papers. You do have to read with an eye for what isn’t said as well as for what is said, but you’ll find different dreams for America, and plenty of information on which to make your decision.

Ignore the cult of personality…what a worldwide embarrassment it is for Americans to vote for image over substance…those who feed it to us reveal their cynicism, those who buy into it reveal their ignorance. As both candidates have said, we are, or at least can be, better than that.

Do not fall prey to the claim, explicit or implicit, that God is on one side or the other – or even a third side. That’s nonsense. And it’s nonsense to think that there aren’t faith-filled, genuine, gracious Christians on all sides. And it’s an offense against the faith to reject, ignore, or otherwise debase someone simply because of their political views.

Seek the truth, don’t presume you have it, much less own it. Don’t trade bumper-stickers, one liners, or campaign themes for real information. But note, I said seek…the work is up to you.

What's Your Understanding of Faith, Belief, and Trust?

2008-09-11T08:39:00.000-07:00

A well-respected 21st century theologian begins one of his books with these sentences: "Faith is believing and trusting in God. Theology is the discipline of thinking about God in light of our faith."

What is your understanding, in light of today's culture, of the relationship of the words 'faith', 'belief' and 'trust'?

Today’s culture has done a couple of things to the notion of faith. And the quote you offer points to them well. It defines faith as having two components – belief and trust.

I think it is reasonable to argue that for most Americans belief is a matter of the head, or more particularly it’s an idea seeking proof, data, evidence. We often use the word belief when we speak of scientific matters whether it’s evolution, quantum theory, or climate change. Interestingly, this idea seeking proof business is plainly used by those supporting the scientific claims and by those who want to block or debunk them in the name of faith. It’s as though belief is a form of investigation.

Alternatively, in some quarters, belief is often no more than an intentionally thoughtless assent to a set of dogmatic statements about something, over against which any variation is wrong, condemned, ignorant, or even evil. This is the fundamentalist approach, whether political, religious, atheistic, cultural, etc.

Trust has largely become a matter of the heart, and quite passive. We look for someone to trust so that we can sit back and not worry, and be comfortable…they’ll take care of it. That’s how we choose political leaders, clergy, spouses, schools… And it often seems that those who ask for our trust are mostly asking that we leave them alone and keep our noses out of whatever we have entrusted to them. It’s kind of like a pat on our pretty little heads.

Now, I’m not saying everyone takes belief and trust, and therefore, faith on those terms…but I think that’s the culturally dominant theme.

The New Testament uses the same word for faith and belief, so I think we’d be well served to close the gap. And that word doesn’t reference an idea in search of proof, but instead to experiences, events, and understandings that are beyond reasonableness…incarnation, resurrection, forgiveness, mercy, sacrifice. For these things there is no evidence, there is only response. Faith points us beyond all limitations.

That’s where trust comes in. Trust is responding to those experiences, events, and understandings as though they are most certainly true. Trust is risk taking. I believe in incarnation, resurrection, forgiveness, mercy, sacrifice, therefore, I will act contrary to my inclination, contrary to my socialization, contrary to expectations and be a reverberating echo of those things now.

Faith and trust are active, whole body, whole life things.

I don’t disagree with the definition of theology, but I think it’s main purpose is to expose the limitations we place upon God through our thinking about God. Theology always has to confess that it can’t speak the bare truth about God, it is always stuck in the world of metaphor.

Communion before Baptism?

2008-09-10T14:45:00.000-07:00

Can people come to faith through Holy Communion without being baptized? ? If so, does that negate the necessity or primacy or function of Baptism?

What I find intriguing first of all is the notion of “coming to faith” through Holy Communion, and by implication, through Baptism. The glib response is to say, “No, faith comes to people.” Come to think of it, that’s not that glib…it’s really important. Particularly in denominations that baptize infants we’ve come to equate baptizing with the giving of faith. On a great many occasions I have told parents of the seed of faith being planted in a child in Baptism. I’ll have to rethink that…

My own experience stands against that sort of coming to faith, or planting of faith by the sacrament. I was given the gift of faith months before I was baptized, and that faith included a very strong sense of having been washed clean and raised to new life. And I’m hardly alone in that experience, adults, unless they are under some compulsion, don’t come to Baptism without at least some measure of faith that has been gifted to them.

But that’s where it all gets sticky. When scripture speaks of both Peter and Paul baptizing whole households it surely, or at least reasonably, is speaking of adults (slaves and servants, who were members of the household) who were compelled to be baptized, if not at the direct order of the head of the house, at least by the social requirements of their position. We infant baptizers also assume children were present. So, we can conclude that faith is not a prerequisite to Baptism.

At the same time Jesus leaves a curious open door through his real silence about Baptism…he baptizes no one with water and there’s no indication it was a requirement for being a disciple, or for that matter an apostle. We have the command to baptize at the end of Matthew’s gospel, and the cryptic Mark 16:16 (which doesn’t appear in many ancient manuscripts), “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” So what happens to the one who believes and is not baptized? A grace based response would be, “relax, God’s love and mercy are yours.” (By the way the same word is translated as faith and belief.)

The point is that faith is neither a prerequisite nor a consequence of Baptism, but is in a sense, what opens us to the power of Baptism: forgiveness, freedom from the fear of death and evil, and an unending relationship with God (I’m paraphrasing Luther’s Small Catechism).

And that’s a good jumping off point for Holy Communion. Faith opens us to the gifts of Holy Communion: participation in the new covenant, forgiveness, real life, and an unending relationship with God (still paraphrasing). Sounds much the same, doesn’t it. Baptism has more of an “eternal” feel and Holy Communion an in the moment feel, though. (But then, eternal and in the moment are strictly human ideas anyway.)

The early church quickly established the sequence, Baptism and only then Holy Communion, making Baptism a rite for entry into membership, and Holy Communion a rite for insiders. But, I suspect that was chiefly a way of maintaining some safety (they were being persecuted) and of not being treated as people who practiced the abomination of cannibalism (which was a common misunderstanding of Holy Communion). The “great commission” taken literally as a required sequence (go, baptize, teach, obey) provided a great rationale. And as all of us church insiders know, what we do once becomes a tradition. One which has largely persisted to this day, even though the persecutions are rare and the misunderstanding long settled.

In spite of the tradition, I personally am loathe to require of people what Jesus did not seem to require of his apostles/inner circle. As I’ve said, there’s no indication that they were all baptized, and good indication that their faith or lack of faith (Judas was there) was decisive when it came to sharing in the bread and cup.

In the end, we baptize and share Holy Communion, simply because Jesus told us to. He made no connections, left no sequence, assigned no levels of importance…he just said do these things and you’ll know the presence, grace, and sacrificial love of God.

What about the "Prosperity" gospel?

2008-09-09T10:33:00.000-07:00

What is your opinion on the latest wave of prosperity preaching? Why do you think this message is so popular? How can we meet the needs of those that attend these churches, while at the same time preach the Gospel according to our understanding?

Personally, I think prosperity religion is nothing more than a modern spin of Norman Vincent Peale’s message on the Power of Positive Thinking. Instead of looking to Christ as the One who guides us, we need only to look upon ourselves. Recently, I watched one such program put on by a well known mega church in our area. Their theme throughout their broadcast was that Jesus wants us to be rich. Nothing the pastor said had any continuity. While he was able to back up his statements by quoting scripture, which he did most fervently, these scriptures were so blatantly taken out of context, it became very confusing. I just can’t make the leap from being thankful of Christ’s generosity in my life and believing that He wants me to be rich.

First of all, I like your use of the word “wave”. There is nothing particularly new about it, other than the slickness of the marketing. I haven’t checked, but I suspect it is a peculiarly American invention rooted in the long told myth of the “self made man”. (I know many people who have courageously battled incredible obstacles and become “successful”. Some have called themselves self-made, but when they tell their stories you hear of person after person who gave them hope, gave them a chance, gave them support.) It has especially been a part of our recent social fabric: Tony Robinson, Neuro-Linguistic-Programing, The Secret… It is a major challenge to the Church.

The prosperity preachers (Osteen, Treat, et. al.) proclaim something I can’t even identify as Christian.

Here’s why I say that.

1) Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension were not in any way, shape, or form about ensuring personal material abundance, or even the opportunity to gain it. Jesus’ life is about restoring relationship between God and humanity and human being with each other.

2) The abundant life that Jesus speaks of simply cannot honestly be projected into a capitalist, wealth building model of success/abundance. Jesus’ world was one which expected that the elite/wealthy would use their resources to provide sustainable livelihood and honor for those “downstream”. It was a patronage system in which each level had accountability for providing for the levels below. The gathering of wealth was not for personal gain only (that was a shameful activity), but for the maintenance of the society. Hunger was virtually unknown except in periods of crop failure. However, Jesus lived in a time when the elite class – in particular the Jewish elites (in an effort to keep up with the Romans) abandoned their responsibility and gathered wealth for themselves. Jesus never objects to wealth, but is blistering when it comes to the accumulation of wealth for personal gain only.

3) Christian community as described in Acts, 1&2 Corinthians, Philippians, James all point to an understanding like Jesus’ when it comes to material wealth. Offerings weren’t taken to maintain a professional worship/teaching/evangelizing organization, they were a redistribution of wealth to provide for basic needs and the opportunity for individuals to live out their faith, gifts and calling.

I’m beginning to feel a rant coming on, so I’ll stop there.

The call to the Church is, I think, to very publicly live out abundance as Jesus proclaimed it. We to not be afraid of wealth, and not be afraid to speak of its proper, faithful, holy use… I don’t think we need our own slick presentation…but we do need to open, and relentless, as we give ourselves away.

What does it mean to participate in political life?

2008-09-08T11:00:00.000-07:00

If indeed Christians have a moral and civic responsibility to participate in the political life of society, what exactly do you think this means?

Our responsibility is so much more profound than just moral and civic – the striving for fairness and economic stability. At the same time I’d also say that it isn’t a question of should we participate, but of how we participate. We live and move and breathe in a political society: even withdrawal is a form of “participation” – it’s the act of handing your choices to someone else. It is simply impossible to separate political life from faith life. Those who claim such a separation usually live out a faith different from the one they proclaim.

In so far as the U.S.A. is still a representative democracy of sorts, the demands are higher…we are the government, after all. In so far as we are our brother’s/sister’s keeper said government is one of the tools to be used to do that keeping. To disengage from political life seems to me to be an instance of what James speaks of: If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? (James 2.15-16 NRSV)

So, I believe that faith calls us to be engaged in determining the aims and actions of our government. At the same time, I object to the approach of many in the evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative factions of the church, who seem to want to legislate/adjudicate the morality that they have dubbed “Christian” into law. Part of faithful engagement is recognizing that people of good will and good intent and good citizenship have differing views. A truly evangelical – rooted in the Gospel – approach to tough issues doesn’t mandate obedience it honors the varying opinions and calls into conversation/relationship.

So, what does it mean to be engaged?

It means to be educated about the structure and function of government, about the issues of the day, about the people seeking to lead, about your own faith.

It means to participate according to your gifts and your call/passions. Some may only vote, others may also organize, or support, or advocate, or run for office.

It means having conversation, with each other, with those who will stretch or even push us to better understand those with whom we disagree, and most of all with God.

How do we stay focused?

2008-09-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

I feel like "distraction" is one of the biggest hindrances in my faith life. I'm distracted by a busy job, the chores of being a housewife, the news in our world, the demands of many relationships. How do we keep FOCUSED?!

The asker of this question knows that I’m an ADD adult…so my first response is: focus…what’s that?

Though of course, I do have something to say about the matter.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) Jesus talks a lot about daily life. But, I suspect most people haven’t heard it interpreted in that way. We’ve spiritualized it so much, “focused” so intently on the “Beatitudes” with eyes that look to heaven, that we miss the day-to-day reality of which Jesus speaks. For me the key verse is 6:34: So do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Each day has enough trouble on its own. (The Pastor Paul translation).

So the focus is this day. Or more to the point, the focus is on the “distractions”. It’s a form of spiritual temptation to focus on “faith”. What I mean is that contrasting “faith” with the activities and challenges that make up our day is a fairly modern idea and probably a form of idolatry. Faith detached from life isn’t faith anymore. But, that’s what most of us have been trained to do.

Faith, instead of being something we focus on, is something we focus with. This I think is really the point of engaging and studying Scripture. This I think is the point of devotions, personal confession, and prayer. Those things help us internalize and, in the midst of our days, hold up the lens of faith. There’s an apocryphal story about Martin Luther in which he says, in effect, “My schedule is so full today I’m going to have to pray 3 times longer than usual.”

There’s a wonderful term that Buddhist’s use for what I’m talking about – mindfulness. (We shouldn’t be afraid to use the word or the concept just because it doesn’t come from within the Christian tradition.) It means bringing your faith to bear on the moment, whether you are chopping wood, dealing with a difficult person, vacuuming, changing a diaper, enjoying a glass of wine, or doing anything else. It even means bringing your faith to bear on moments of not doing anything.

The change is seeing the distractions themselves as moments in which faith is lived. Now, if the issue behind the question is not being able to do that all the time, my response is: that’s what grace is about. In Christ, God sets aside any demand for perfection (God’s, society’s, our employer’s, even our own) and seeks only our openness to seeing God’s presence even in our moments of “distraction” or even our moments of failure (we call that forgiveness).

What about daily devotions?

2008-09-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

I've always thought that daily devotions are a very good thing. And I try. But I'm also curious what other people do - how they fit it in their lives in a meaningful way. What do you do? What suggestions do you have for making devotions a priority?

I think “daily devotions” can take many forms. For some reason, I think most people probably mean sitting by themselves, or perhaps with family members, and reading a snippet of scripture, a short reflection on that snippet, and saying a prayer based on that reflection. Others perhaps follow a tradition of reciting the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and making the sign of the cross. As best I can tell there’s really no specific recommendation in the Bible itself, the closest comment being Acts 2:42: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (NRSV) So Acts paints a picture of communal gathering that looks a bit like what we call a “worship service”.

As I see it “devotions” have a couple of aims.

One is to affirm God’s presence in our lives, both as a reminder to ourselves and as a way of expressing our gratitude for that presence. And by presence I mean just that the presence of God here, now, for me, for all no matter what else is going on and in the midst of all else that is going on. I also mean the real presence of God’s full grace in and through Christ for me and for all. And I mean the real movement of the Holy Spirit in and through me and all.

Another aim of devotions is to claim a moment in my day for consciously reorienting my life around God’s presence…call it discipleship. I need a daily reminder that my interactions with others can be shaped by God’s presence instead of by my economic needs/desires, my political views, my fears, etc. So much around us calls us to ignore the presence of God in myself and in all those around me, I need the reminder.

So, when it comes to my own “devotions” I’m more interested in discipleship than discipline. Those who know me probably would not be at all surprised that I’m not a snippet kind of guy, or a daily lectionary person. Though I have several times over the years, as a discipline, read through the Bible in 6 months. And I have written commentaries on several books of the Bible as a discipline.

Right now, however, I am pursuing two “devotional” tracks. The first is a conscious effort to be attentive to the beauty around me, in whatever form that comes…it sends me right into the arms of the Creator with profound gratitude. The second track is this blog…your questions send me to scripture, they send me into the depths of my faith and mind and heart to wrestle with myself and with God.

Perhaps that’s part of the answer to the idea of “making devotions a priority”. I think the idea is not so much to find time for devotion/s in the midst of all the other things I have to do – then they become just one more thing. Instead I try (and I do mean try) to let devotion/s be the ground, the foundation for the things I have to do – then, by the grace of God, those things become more than things to do, they become opportunities to see the presence of God.

How do I apply Scripture in my life?

2008-09-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

I know the Bible is God's word & that I need & want to depend on it to help guide me in my walk of faith. How do you suggest making what I read applicable to my daily life, when I don't really understand the context or even know the characters that well?

It’s hard to overemphasize the need for us to study Scripture and to study about scripture. Sermons, no matter how wonderful or informative they might be, are able to provide the depth we need. Just reading the Scripture is a wonderful thing to do…but so much is so foreign to our experience as technological, individualistic, spiritual (really an 18th century concept), people. Our world is complex in ways that Scripture never imagines, and the worlds of Scripture are complex in ways that we can’t imagine. I say worlds because the world of Abraham is different from the world of Moses, which is different from the world of Jeremiah, which is different from the world of Jesus. We can say people are people wherever they are but we know our values, thought processes, and problem solutions as 21st century Americans are often radically different from 21st century Kenyans, Chinese, or Guatemalans. All the more so when we travel back those 21 centuries or more.

More than study, we also need to talk with others about what we are studying. Scripture is the Church’s book. But let’s be clear that doesn’t mean it belongs to an institution or denomination. It is the book of the people who are called to read it, study it, and rely upon it. So, ask questions of each other, including: How does this apply to my life, this situation, this challenge?

I think we’re so concerned with coming up with the “right” answer, we never ask the question. And I think we’re so individualistic that we’re reluctant to let anyone else into the conversation. And we’re busy, so terribly busy, that we don’t want to take the time for the conversation anyway.

As to application…start from where you are (which is the only starting point you have anyway), and read, and study, and ask, and have conversation. Then act, desiring to love your neighbor as yourself and trusting in the deep power of forgiveness. I think that’s the plan I’d recommend to someone who has just opened the Bible for the first time and to someone who has engaged it rigorously for a lifetime.

2008-09-01T13:42:00.000-07:00

Should young children be allowed to take communion? There’s a disagreement in my family. I say it's like baptism -- it's about God, not you. So the fact that a child might not yet intellectually be able to understand communion doesn't really matter; we don't have to understand it to get the benefit, that's up to God. If we did need to cognitively "be ready" for communion, that would mean communion was simply an act of remembering Christ's death and resurrection. I know communion is more than a remembrance (in Lutheran theology anyway)--I remember the "in, with, and under" from confirmation. But trying to explain what I really mean when I say "mystery" sort of trapped me. I need a refresher course on communion, if you please.

I am enjoying the “practical” questions! Thanks for this one, I think it is on the minds of many parents, grandparents and on-lookers in congregations.

There are four major forms of understanding Holy Communion. 1) Transubstantiation – the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Christ…the bread and wine, in essence, gone. 2) Consubstantiation1 – the real presence of the spiritual (resurrected and ascended) body of Christ “in, with and under” the bread and wine. 3) Consubstantiation2 – the spiritual presence of the real body (resurrected and ascended) of Christ. 4) A remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection (but only in the sense that we wouldn’t remember the crucifixion if it wasn’t for the resurrection).

The first three – though they vary in the details and methods – all reflect God in Christ acting on our behalf, even now. The fourth one is about our response to what Christ has done for us. My tradition – Lutheran – holds to #2. The first three all see those who share in communion as sharing in the mystery of Jesus’ death and resurrection in an intimate and personal way every time communion is received.

Denominational practices vary widely when it comes to the question of how old should someone be to take communion. I believe most Orthodox churches commune infants immediately following their baptism. American Roman Catholics typically commune children when they reach 2nd grade. Protestant congregations vary all over the place. I assume evangelicals, Baptists, etc allow participation in communion only after the age of consent/baptism…therefore, teens and up only.

Much of the variation in practice relates to a specific passage from 1Corinthians. There, in 11:28-29 Paul writes the following:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (NRSV)

The call for examination and discernment of the body is the hinge point. Many have interpreted this to mean that some level of theological understanding of their chosen form of communion. “Yes,” they would say, “God is at work, but we can undo/invalidate what God is up to by our misunderstanding and misuse.” Moreover, some groups require that the participant be able to make some confession of their understanding – whether that’s a conversation with the priest/pastor or just checking a box on a communion registration card. (One consequence of this is the practice of some congregations to exclude the developmentally disabled, those diagnosed with dementia, and some physically disabled people from participating in communion.)

My own sense is that Paul simply isn’t talking about theological understanding. He is talking about awareness of being in community (read all of Corinthians and it is pretty obvious that is his focus). More particularly he is charging the educated and privileged folks to stop excluding those from the lower (and lowest) social rungs. Given the social structures of the day most surely children were present, along with slaves (who had been baptized as household members – what the master did the slave did - not as believers in our sense). So it seems to me the issue clearly isn’t doctrinal but social. What Paul is warning against is taking communion yourself while at the same time denying it to someone else who desires it.

So, my practice has been to advise parents and grandparents that children even infants may share in the meal. But if you choose to wait, don’t pick an arbitrary age, wait until your child demonstrates an awareness that he or she is being included in what the community is doing. (Which most often shows up in a spoken or acted form of “why can’t I have the bread, too?”

As a last note…communion is a sacrament, and like baptism it has nothing to do with what I bring to the font or table, but what God pours out for me and the community of believers.

God and Human?

2008-08-29T12:04:00.000-07:00

Must we take the God and human aspects of Jesus as one more of those mysteries we can’t solve? It is puzzling that in his adult life there are times that he appears to be very and only human, as if the “God” switch is turned off. He appears to act as we might expect a human of his culture to act. At other times the switch seems to be on, as if he were both at once.

My short answer is yes, it’s one more of those mysteries we can’t solve.

But I’m not sure solving is what we’re supposed to do, whether that means finding a way (rational or not) to fit the pieces together, or means figuring out which is “true”. On one extreme are those who use words like inerrancy and who tell us we weren’t meant to understand so to keep quiet and accept the divinely delivered/dictated truth. On the other are those who seek historical data (whatever that might be), buttressed by social scientific analysis so that we can cut our way down to the truth. The former group wants the story of Jesus to be so big and powerful that everything is comfortably contained by it. The latter wants the story of Jesus pared down so that it comfortably fits in with everything we know about the world. Both operate with a desire to solve the mystery.

I think the point is to let the mystery live in us, flow through us…to know it in the sense of being in intimate relationship with the story. I recall a phrase I think comes from Luther…read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. Part of the Christian call is to let the story become part of us…not something that is reserved for a particular time or setting…not just the parts that are easily palatable, but even the gristle that you just have to keep chewing and may never actually swallow.

I suspect that the portraits of Jesus painted by the gospel writers and Paul were accumulations of stories, some bare and some embellished, to address specific challenges in their communities. There was neither a need or desire to make it all fit seamlessly…each tells the truth in its own way, each addresses a different circumstance. It can do the same for us.

Over the years I’ve come to really prize the more human stories…and I am still chewing hard on the miracles (crassly put, a “magical” Jesus doesn’t much appeal to me, but I’m not much of a traditional believer). But I know the power of Jesus presence when I think I’m following and find myself thinking, when I’m soul starving and soul weary, when death seems to be holding sway and life breaks out. I know the power of his presence, not because I have it all figured out, but just because I let the story flow through my days.

How do we keep trusting?

2008-08-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that 'losing trust' is the strongest demon of all for those who seek to follow Christ. This is a demon which is cast out by the gift of faith, but then goes and gathers its friends and returns in greater force than before. Even the apostle Peter seems to have been plagued with this demon. What can WE do to truly cast out this evil spirit so that we may follow Jesus in faith???

First let me offer a caution about using the words “demon” and “demonic”. They are awfully powerful words in that they dehumanize issues and people. They are often used in the creation of enemies (an act taken to reassure oneself of being “right”, since there’s no better way of being right than to be able to point to who is wrong). More to the point here, they are also words often used to lop off perfectly human but thoroughly uncomfortable behaviors.

Trust isn’t a matter of certainty, it’s the taking of a risk. “I trust you” = I know you are capable, and have the opportunity of hurting/disappointing me, but I don’t think you will. Trust is about vulnerability and exposure, and since it’s my vulnerability and exposure that at stake my trust is always dependent on the terms I set. Trust ebbs and flows: even trust in God, because even (especially?) God doesn’t always/often meet my terms.

Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane comes at the low tide of his trust… “is this really what you have in mind, Father?” Can I trust you? And then, he states the heart of the matter, “not my will but yours.” And where does it lead?…not to trust, but to the deepest depths of abandonment, and then to death, and only then to resurrection. What matters is not our trust, but God’s presence.

We often equate faith and trust. I’m not at all sure that’s right or even helpful. Faith (a gift we're given) seems to call us forward even when trust (our response to the gift) is hard to come by. Do think of Peter. Jesus calls him out onto the water for a walk. In trust Peter steps out, and when trust ebbs Peter sinks. But that is not the end of the story. Jesus who is right there, lifts him up, puts him back in the boat, and on Peter goes to his destination.

Trust, because it’s our response is inherently untrustworthy. But the presence of God/Christ/Holy Spirit is quite literally a given. Trust is our means of keeping our risk level comfortable. Jesus says, “Who said anything about comfortable? Just get in the boat.”

Who do YOU say that Jesus is? Who is he for you and what does that mean for your life?

2008-08-26T11:24:00.000-07:00

That didn't take long!

What a question to start with…talk about cutting to the chase! The answer is probably at least worthy of a chapter in a book (I’m working on that) if not a book all by itself (maybe that’s where I’ll end up).

Here, I’ll try to be brief…try

1) Jesus is what we know about God

All of our “God-talk” is provisional – we do the best we can with the words we have to describe the indescribable. All of our “God-talk” is metaphor. And all of our “God-talk” is limited by our human notions of things. When we say almighty, we think in terms of human might. When we say God is love, our only reference point is human love. When we say all-knowing, we are constricted to human ways of knowing. I think much of our theology and much of our worship and much of our living/faith are confused, distorted, and perhaps disabled by casting God in the role of a really powerful human monarch, architect, healer, warrior, judge, etc.

Then along comes Jesus, who in very human ways redefines power, love, knowing, and all the other categories we apply to God. Jesus reveals the truth about God – his life is the criteria for all talk about God.

It shouldn’t be any surprise then that I worry about/offended by calling Jesus “king” or “lord” and then investing those images with the kinds of power, judgment, and authority that he did not display in his living and his dying.

2) Jesus is the Son of God

In some ways this is saying again what I just said. A son, especially an eldest bore the authority and the status of his father – he incarnated the father – wherever he went. So I confess…I have no proof, I simply believe – that Jesus is the Son of God.

3) Jesus is human.

More particularly he was a 1st century human, living a conditioned life in the context of 1st century understandings of society, the cosmos, and life. While he was a “carpenter” I don’t believe he was necessarily (as the Son of God) the best carpenter ever, or the best son ever, or the best brother ever, etc. Not the perfect human, but perfectly human.

4) Jesus is the Savior…my Savior

I believe the gospel that Jesus taught, the gospel that he was and is, is unique – grace not performance or achievement, gift not acceptance or bargain. He saves us from those things, from our need to do it ourselves, to do it alone. I do not believe he bought off an angry god, or a shrewd devil, or compensated either of them for our bad behavior. He saves us by accepting human wrath and anger, letting it take him into nothingness, and then returning to life through the grace of God.

5) Jesus died

Really died…dead.

6) Jesus lives

I have no idea what the resurrected life is…scriptural accounts are varied, cryptic, and a tad weird. But something happened that the disciples identified as Jesus resurrected from the dead. This is not a matter of proof, evidence, data, whatever…it is an article of faith. I don’t believe that the resurrection “makes sense”…but it isn’t about sense, logic, or reason. If there is evidence it only exists in the lives of those who live in response to the gospel claim that neither wrath, anger, malice, nor any other form of death gets the last word.

For believers, Jesus’ life (his life, death, and resurrection) flows through their own lives. His does not swallow up ours, nor ours his. They flow together along the unique course that each of us follow.

That seems like enough for a blog…I don’t see this as a stand alone statement, by the way, it is just a single facet of the precious and complex whole of my faith.

What's Your Question?

2008-08-25T11:17:00.000-07:00

I don't know if blogs are the right way to do this, but I'd really like to respond to your questions, instead of feeding you mine. (I'm going to keep working on those, but in a different format.) I'd rather be in conversation with you than talking to myself...and while some have replied to my posts (for which I am deeply grateful) I'd like to hear more.

So, send me your questions - justkeepasking@gmail.com.

I'll reflect - we'll talk.

Blessings,
Paul

What’s the Status of the Status Quo?

2008-08-19T14:00:00.000-07:00

(My reflections here, though they have been on my mind for at least a couple of years, have been informed by a recent reading of “The Social Gospel of Jesus” by Bruce Malina. Dense reading, but really rich.)

The Pharisees take a beating in the gospels. They appear to us as the anal retentive folks who need everyone and everyone’s actions lined up in an order that they have determined to be the right order. We paint them as people who loved rules for rules’ sake and who believed that the rules were more important than people. They interpreted scripture narrowly, precisely and would brook no alternatives.

Of course, it is not that simple. The obedience they desired from their fellow Jews was their path to what passed for freedom in 1st century Judaism. If everyone could observe the Law for just a day or so the messiah would come and establish a proper theocracy, casting out Roman rule, Greek culture, and every gentile taint. (One presumes that the follow-on hope was that upon seeing such obvious and profound benefits, the Jews would continue to observe the Law.)

On a less hopeful, but more practical note, they were also trying to preserve the social status quo. As contact with gentiles and gentile cultures became more inevitable (one had to make a living, after all), the pressed back with more vigor – and each violation of the Law/status quo became more of a betrayal. Adaptation/assimilation was not an option – the gentiles and what they offered were more than just unfaithful, they were sub-human.

And, the Pharisees were not alone in trying to maintain the status quo. The Sadducees and Herodians also found themselves at risk. These were the people in power…priests and politicians whose prestige and position depended on maintaining their fragile relationship with Rome. They, too, saw the gentiles as less than human, but they were willing to trade purity for assured status.

The reality was that while Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians had little love for each other, they found a common enemy in Jesus who relentlessly called the status quo into question, called the marginalized into the center, and called gentiles human. In the end they succeeded in branding him a heretic and an enemy. And then he was marginalized in a most effective and final manner.

The reason for the extended reflection above is what seems to me to be a striking similarity with aspects of the evangelical movement and my own denomination the ELCA. (The E in ELCA, by the way stands for evangelical, but it is officially pronounced eh-vangelical not ee-vangelical just to be sure that no one equates us with them!) There are those who use scripture, and Jesus, to maintain the social status quo – whether it is the fiction of a Christian America, or the blessed and blurry memory of a congregation from the 1950’s. And there are those who use scripture, and Jesus, as tools to preserve personal or institution privilege and influence.

More specifically, within the past few years the ELCA has witnessed an on-going battle over bishops. Beyond the theological sniping lie, on one side, the desire to preserve a congregation status quo in which the pastor is the relational hinge-pin/arbiter, and on the other side, the desire to strengthen denominational/personal influence by giving the hierarchy more “oomph” in the form of a bishop in “historic” succession – which by the way makes pastors more “priestly”. By and large the theological discussion is window dressing. More significantly both groups marginalize Jesus and his message that calls the status quo into question.

The same analysis applies to the moralist and political factions of American evangelicalism. Jesus and the Gospel are not at stake in the struggle with society. The evangelical struggle is to maintain a social and a political status quo – comfort and power, if you will.

Comfort and power: things that Jesus redefines…if we listen.

Is the Church Demoralized?

2008-08-02T17:17:00.000-07:00

A couple of months ago, at our annual Synod Assembly, a pastor proposed a resolution declaring marriage to be only the union of a man and woman. He was earnestly trying to protect something. He passionately spoke of his longing for some sign of hope for our “demoralized church”. I suspect that underneath it all he wasn’t as concerned with marriage as he was with a social structure and faith life rooted in behavioral constraints dictated in Leviticus and inferred from Genesis and Romans. What he expressed was a desire to preserve a particular morality.

In a denomination that loudly proclaims “by grace alone through faith alone”, I find the desire curious. I also find his assessment to be cogent, even if unintentional. I think we are slowly becoming “demoralized.” And I think that might well be a good thing.

(Okay…I am playing fast and loose with the word “demoralized”. I know we mean, “morale is down” when we use the word. But I’m intending it as “becoming less prone to moralizing.”)

Frankly, Christianity isn’t about morality – it’s about relationship, with God, with each other, with creation. Morality at it’s best is no more than a way of describing what the relationship with each other and with creation looks like when we acknowledge our relationship with God. It’s a response, it comes from within.

Unfortunately, at its worst (and this is usually how we use it) morality is a means of control and identification of who is in/out, worthy/unworthy. It’s now a test one must pass if relationship is going to offered, it is imposed from the outside. That’s also what we call “moralizing.”

What about sin? Well, frankly we spend way too much time worrying about particular behaviors. Behavioral sin is essentially a presenting problem – it’s not that it doesn’t cause problems, sometimes huge problems – but the real issue lies underneath. Sin is, more profoundly, about our unwillingness to be in relationship – with God, with each other, with creation, and for that matter with ourselves.

When we spend our time moralizing we divert attention from the deeper issues and keep it at the surface. We also divert attention from ourselves and point it at others. That ends up with calls for repentance that seek behavior change regardless of damage to someone’s spirit.

Real repentance on the other hand, really addressing the issue of sin, is opening up to relationship with God, with each other, and with creation through the grace of Christ, as we are. One of the best places for that to happen is in a “demoralized” church. I’m hoping we’re making progress in that direction.

Are We the Same?

2008-07-30T15:38:00.000-07:00

Early this morning I was watching “30 Days” a show developed and directed by Morgan Spurlock of “Supersize Me” fame. In this episode, a woman, who has been an advocate for strong gun control, left her home in the Boston area to spend 30 days with an Ohio man and his son who according to their own words live “deep in the gun culture.” She lives in an urban neighborhood in which the sound of gunfire is frequent and always means bad, often horribly bad news. The father and son live in a rural community where the sound of gunfire is frequent and means recreation and patriotism.

The point of the show is to put people of clashing values together to see who, if anyone, budges and how far. Underlying it all is what seems to be an American belief that there is a single right national answer to all our societal dilemmas. Founding that belief seems to be even deeper beliefs that we all are or should be the same, and that our culture is or should be the same no matter where we are in the country. Those beliefs undergird other desires for unity/exclusiveness: from designating English as the official language of the U.S.A. to the “One Way” evangelistic efforts of many churches (which I think is based on a misreading of scripture – but that’s another discussion).

The America in which I have grown up has never been a single culture. Some cultures have been suppressed or kept at the margins or kept to certain neighborhoods – sometimes ghettos – but they have always been there. One size has never fit all – less so now than ever. There are over 80 primary languages spoken by the students of our local high schools.

What’s more remarkable is that diversity is coming at finer and finer levels all the time. There aren’t 600 television channels and 150 or more satellite radio channels because we all want that level of variety. It is because we exist in such variety. Most American communities, even the ones that aren’t ethnically or racially diverse, are really collections of communities – each with its own context and expression of values.

The same is true of most American congregations. Yet, we work to organize ourselves as though the differences didn’t exist. We strive for a vision that will inspire us all in essential the same way.

Perhaps it is time to let go of vision and our striving for monolithic sense of unity. Yes, I have heard (and spoken, and even turned into poster form) “where there is no vision the people perish.” An alternatively accurate translation of the text of Proverbs 29.18 is, “where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint.” In other words, where the word is not spoken into our specific context, we quit caring about anyone but ourselves.

The issue isn’t finding a unifying vision, or a single solution it is hearing the word applied to our context and our contexts. It isn’t relativism, it’s faithfulness.

Are We Different?

2008-07-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

A couple of Sundays ago I had the pleasure of listening to a pretty good off-the-cuff preacher talk about fear, the staple of the current American social diet. As an antidote, he offered baptism, and talked about the powerful love that undergirds adoption, and called us all to remember our inclusion in God’s family of choice.

That last phrase, “family of choice”, was not his. That’s my “spin” on “adopted family” (his words). I probably have spun it that way because I have always wrestled with Christianity’s scandal of particularity. That’s the doctrine of God working through a particular chosen people (the Israelites) to bring salvation through a particular man (Jesus) whose work has resulted in the redemption of a particular people (Christians). All those “particulars”, of course, provide for the exclusion of others…as some see it all others, in spite of the Bible leaving the issue reasonably open.

Where this is leading me is back to baptism. What does baptism do? Does it set us apart from others, behind some wall of particularity? Are we who believe really better off in the long run, the eternal run, than those who don’t believe? Does God reward us for choosing to be baptized, or for our parents’ choice to have us baptized?

When I speak to people about baptism I usually end up telling them this…when a person is baptized, though they cannot hear the words, God is repeating the words spoken to Jesus: “this is my beloved child, with whom I am well pleased.” It’s not so much an adoption as it is God declaring a truth that we’ve managed to hide from ourselves all along – we are the image of God, and nothing can change that. We can lose everything, everything else in life…but we can’t lose the image, we can’t lose the love, we can’t lose our membership in God’s family.

The beginning point for us all is Jesus’ baptism. I’ve been raised with the notion (maybe it’s a doctrine) that Jesus’ baptism is simply different than ours. After all, if Jesus is sinless, and baptism is about repentance and washing away sin, his baptism had to be something different. Well, call it what you will, Jesus repents at his baptism. He turns his eyes away from carpentry and building and caring for his family and community. He turns his life toward caring for all humanity, declaring the reign of God in our midst, being what he has always been – the image of God, the son of God. Baptism did not elevate Jesus above everyone, it did not separate him from anyone – it sent him into our midst as one of us (that is what we mean when we talk about incarnation).

Our baptism does the same thing. It is a moment in which God declares what has always been true about us and makes plain the love that undergirds our life. We aren’t set above, apart, aside from others in baptism; we’re dropped into their midst to demonstrate with our words and actions, our silences and in-actions, our presence and our prayer that they too are and always have been the image of God, the children of God.

Are you certain?

2008-07-18T15:22:00.000-07:00

I might be a bit behind the times, but I am still puzzling over “flip-flopping”. Just a few weeks ago the phrase occupied a lot of air time and column inches as political pundits, candidates, surrogates, and parties pointed fingers. Changing a position or value for the sake of picking up a few votes is surely a heinous thing (the political form of “anything for a buck”). I suppose candidates who do such things are simply counting on well-documented, willful ignorance of the electorate.

What disturbs me more, though, is that underlying the critiques is a culture of certainty that values intransigence. When did it become a bad thing to learn, to grow, to see new possibilities? When did knowledge become a fixed quantity instead of a flowing stream? When did values become rocky dams instead of riverbeds?

I am not suggesting any sort of meandering relativism. However, I do think it is high time we confessed the limited nature of our knowledge and the provisional nature of our values. Provisional may be a disturbing word to some, but I like its roots – “until more is seen”. The idea echoes the Apostle Paul’s words in 1Cor. 13.9-12. As more knowledge becomes available, as understanding grows, so do our thought processes and values, and even our faith.

Consider history. Historians gather data that others recorded, the anecdotes and remembrances of still others, and then piece together “what happened”. It is always a puzzle with pieces missing – lots of pieces. Those who recorded it, those who left it in recoverable form, and those who gather it have filtered the “data” chosen. The twists and turns of the thought processes, emotional ties, etc. are largely unnamed and unknown. Anecdotes and remembrances never bear more than a single facet of the whole story and shine with the afterglow of victory or the bitterness, recrimination, and judgment of defeat.

No story tells the whole story…not even the Bible; (perhaps especially the Bible, given that it tells of a God whose name cannot be spoken and of revelation through the finite means of incarnation). That is not at all to say that the Bible is unreliable as our guide in life and faith. In fact, it is that very incompleteness that invites us to live our lives in faith – a journey through uncertainty, learning, and transformation all the while relying on God’s grace, not the illusion of our own certainty.

Consider the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 and 3. God allows them to eat from every tree in the Garden of Eden (apparently even the tree of life) except one. They are not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Desiring to be able to “get it right” and face life with certainty they eat the fruit of that tree. Such is what Christians name “the fall,” or “original sin”. And still, we want to get it right, to be certain.

God’s model does not seem to be life lived on a soap-box or in a bully-pulpit, it is a walk in the park. It is not sorting through a data bank putting every thing, every thought, every action in rank order once and for all. It is a journey into learning, growth and change. It is the journey we see in the lives of Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, Peter, Paul and even Jesus. It would be good to let our politicians, our leaders, and ourselves be on the journey, too.

Too Much?

2008-07-16T10:27:00.000-07:00

A member of the congregation I serve emailed with a couple of concerns in response to my first blog. First, he thought I made a mistake by not labeling James Dobson an extreme conservative evangelical. Honestly, I wrestled with that as I was writing and decided against using an additional adjective – in part to avoid criticism (that worked well, didn’t it!), and in part as recognition of Dobson’s enormous audience (I know quite a few mainstream conservatives who listen regularly to what he has to say).

The second concern was with my comment that care of the poor and the sojourner isn’t a typical concern for American conservatives. I’ll grant that is a pretty broad brush statement. I think what I’ve experienced has placed that broad brush in my hands. My understanding of the conservative political/social approach is that such concerns are neither governmental nor civic, but private. Faith communities are welcome to take up such causes, but they should keep it within their own boundaries. Within those boundaries, I know some quite generous conservatives. While the conservative approach has been to legislate issues of personal morality (that are seen as having broad social consequences), it seems to me it has consciously steered away from the broader call of our accountability to each other.

My reading of the Gospels, and the Letter of James, the Corinthian letters, the Prophets, and the Abraham/Sarah stories points me in a more radical, expansive direction. The call to care for the poor addresses individuals, families, groups, communities and nations. The aim, (to paraphrase Paul in 2Cor. 8.15 who is referencing Ex. 16.18) is: the one who has much does not have too much, that the one who has little does not have too little. Since we are a democracy, our collective self, which we call our “government”, is one of the tools available to us to answer the call. Our taxes, since we pay them to our collective self, are resources for addressing the needs of the poor and the sojourners. Walls and fences are pretty much out of the question – the call is to sacrifice for others not to protection from others.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see many liberals stepping up to the plate, either. To be sure, expansive bureaucracy is not the answer, and neither is convoluted regulation. It’s a mistake to strip personal accountability and the rule of law from our answers to the challenge of caring for the poor and sojourner.

“Up by your own bootstraps” might be a time honored and often-repeated story in America…but it isn’t the Christian story.

Proof?

2008-07-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

While browsing the magazine racks at a local bookstore I came across the current issue of “Christianity Today”. Its cover was a parody of a Time magazine cover from the 60’s – bounded in red a black background supported oversized letters proclaiming “GOD IS NOT DEAD YET”. The subtitle goes on to name those who are the target of this rigorous declaration – among whom are post-modern thinkers. The cover article (which I read on-line) goes on to describe current efforts at providing philosophical proofs for God’s existence.

The sensationalism is rather silly – a defensive smack at the smattering of recent books about atheism, aimed not at the ideas of those books, but at the fears of evangelicals who probably never even picked up the books, much less read them. But, this is America – anything goes if it will sell copies.

As someone who has been in a post-modern frame of mind for the last 30 years, I find the article worrisome. It really misses the point of most “death of God” talk, which speaks of the cultural and sociological changes that have stripped most of us of any real sense of God’s transcendence. Frankly, that’s a point that is hard to argue with…bumper stickers, bill boards, praise music and prayer all proclaim a God who is intimate with us and our world…evangelical worship is most often designed to foster a feeling of closeness with God not the otherness of God…awe is in decidedly short supply.

That’s not all bad, by the way. Implicit in that intimate approach is the confession, (the same one put forward by death of God theology), that we really can’t talk about transcendence anyway…if we could describe it with human words it wouldn’t be transcendent. The best we can do is offer up our best metaphors and as Christians, look to Jesus – he is what we can know about God.

The whole business of looking for “proof” of God’s existence is also troubling. As I understand it there really isn’t “evidence” (read that empirically verifiable, testable data) of God. What we have instead are signs of God – a sign points to something, but isn’t that thing or proof of that thing, and not everyone sees what the sign points to. For example, there are a couple of stop signs about a block away from my home. Those sign point to a public desire for safety and orderliness, and beyond that they point to law, enforcement, and at least potential punishment for those who ignore the signs. For all that they point to, some drivers completely ignore them, others slow to roll through, only a few (actually a very few) respond to all that the sign points to and come to a full stop. Signs offer no proof…just an opportunity to see and respond.

Talking about God’s existence is also a problem. Most Christians confess that existence and non-existence are within God’s hands (Romans 4.17, for example). To talk about God existing is a category mistake – God is beyond existence and non-existence. To paraphrase Paul Tillich, God is the ground of existence.

This is a long way of getting to the core point…we desire certainty, and always have (that’s were Eve and Adam got into trouble) but God does not offer it to us, instead God offers us faith, eyes that see signs, and the mystery of incarnation. No proof, no logical conclusions…just faith, signs, and mystery.

Really, Have You Read the Book?

2008-07-10T15:47:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I was browsing the titles on the new release table at a local book store. One caught my eye and my ire: How Would God Vote?: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative. (David Klinghoffer is the author.) My immediate thought was, “Really, have you read the Biblebook?” Such a thought usually passes from my mind as soon as I find another interesting title., Aafter all, why waste time and energy on such gross presumption?. But, subsequent titles apparently were insufficient to do the job. I went home and quickly sketched an outline for a book in response to Klinghoffer’s book (an outline big enough to be a book itself), and posted it on the wall of my study.

I have not done much of anything with it, since.

Age and my persistent lack of desire to be combative had just about won the day, and I was ready to erase my outline and move onit, but then James Dobson went and blathered on about the same silliness. Again I asked, “Really, have you read the Biblebook?”

My own 36 years of study of, and living encounter with, the Bible have led me to no such conclusion. In fact, the more I read ithe Biblet, the more I study it, and the more I internalize it, the less and less able I am to make the sort of simplistic claim that Klinghoffer (who is an Orthodox Jew), and Dobson (a conservative Evangelical Christian) make. (As I read Klinghoffer, it does seem that he does some justice to the prophetic tradition and its concern for the poor and the sojourner/resident alien – which hardly reflect typical American conservative concerns.)

The moralities expressed in the Bible are quite simply varied. Different times and different people exhibit decidedly different ideas of what “righteousness” looks like. Simple statements like, “you shall not kill,” and “turn the other cheek,” are open to all sorts of interpretation— from the rigorously altruistic to the shameless self-excusatory.

While popular speculation about “what would Jesus do?” often shows no concern for what Jesus actually did, “how would God vote?” takes us into a whole new arena for the abuse of the Bible and the abuse of spiritual influence. So it becomes all the more important for believers, Jewish and Christian, to actually read the bookBible., Rread it with others, study it, study what others have said about it, and then talk about it with each other.

Really, have you read the bookBible? Now is a good time to start.