I started this post some time ago and am just now finishing it. For whatever reason blogger post these things in order of draft and not post.
So...the title is inspired by a situation with a friend. Part of our conversation addressed moral gray areas I thought my friend and I were on the same page with, but it turns out we aren't. That got me thinking...
Disappointment has to be one of the worst feelings. I was disappointed in a friend, but I cannot imagine being disappointed by a spouse or worse - a child. How would a parent deal with that? Is it so hard because we paint an unreaslitic picture of these loved ones in our minds - or something else?
EDIT - I found the post date and time function. All is well in the world!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Synthesis
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am going to do a recap of some thinking I have been doing lately. There is no way to say clearly where I am going with this thing, just that it will combine some thoughts on values, postmodernity, psychology and spirituality of personality, to name a few threads I will try to tie together in some meaningful way.
Much of what we think about God and the church is affected by the way we view the world God has created. Of these three the most important is our view of God. If we think we cannot possibly know God in our limited, human state (agnostic) the way we treat the world, the church - really, our whole lives will be affected. If we believe in an apersonal, set-the-world-in-motion-and-let-it-be, anti-miraculous sort of God (deism) we will necessarily react in certain ways to the idea of God, our families and cultures familiar and foreign.
In much the same way our personalities are large factors when it comes to how we behave as spiritual beings. Spiritual giants such as Thomas a Kempis such as Evelyn Underhill have been talking about the role of Spiritual Direction in the life of mentees Modern Psycho-social research on personality suggests that within the first few years of life we have already adopted a paradigmatic way of relating to the world. Myers-Briggs researchers identify four main avenues: feeling, thinking, sensing and intuition. It is observed that over the next few stages of life we learn to use the other three modes. I think (along with several personality and spirituality experts) that the person God created you to be will a large factor in how you relate to God. Thinkers will tend to think about God, just as they will do to every other relational situation. I think you get the idea.
In much the same way I believe communities tend to share similar approaches to God. Certain things can be said of the faith of the Amish, Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics and Charismatics. The way people view God's imminence, transcendence, the role of the Spirit, etc.
Thinking still larger, people across certain periods in history (within the same culture) can be said to think in similar ways. Nowadays Americans, Western Europeans, Australians and a few others could be said to have similar world views. We share similar cultures, cultural origins and economic conditions. One of the reasons institutions like Asbury Theological Seminary are blessed is because of the Beeson International Center which brings Christian leaders from all over the world to our campus. We are blessed to study and worship together - to share life.
People from other parts of the globe have a very different way of looking at the world. Their frames of reference are totally different than ours. This differing world view has repercussions with regard to the way these guests of ours relate to God.
Now we have come full circle to the modern - postmodern thing. Beginning with art critics and historians a movement has arisen to describe a shift of paradigms going on in our culture. Unlike any other period in history we are trying to describe the shift while it is happening and even forecast where we may be headed. These are educated people to be sure. They are, however, in among this shift as we all are. Some people claim the future can be forecasted to some degree by following trends in Europe, Australia and New Zealand which have tended to be anywhere from 20 to 50 years ahead of the US in similar shifts. These and other techniques can only be so helpful, however, since the period we are in can only truly be considered once we are out of it.
So here is a twist to our normal conversation: To what degree does talking about the direction our society is taking actually determine where its course?
Much of what we think about God and the church is affected by the way we view the world God has created. Of these three the most important is our view of God. If we think we cannot possibly know God in our limited, human state (agnostic) the way we treat the world, the church - really, our whole lives will be affected. If we believe in an apersonal, set-the-world-in-motion-and-let-it-be, anti-miraculous sort of God (deism) we will necessarily react in certain ways to the idea of God, our families and cultures familiar and foreign.
In much the same way our personalities are large factors when it comes to how we behave as spiritual beings. Spiritual giants such as Thomas a Kempis such as Evelyn Underhill have been talking about the role of Spiritual Direction in the life of mentees Modern Psycho-social research on personality suggests that within the first few years of life we have already adopted a paradigmatic way of relating to the world. Myers-Briggs researchers identify four main avenues: feeling, thinking, sensing and intuition. It is observed that over the next few stages of life we learn to use the other three modes. I think (along with several personality and spirituality experts) that the person God created you to be will a large factor in how you relate to God. Thinkers will tend to think about God, just as they will do to every other relational situation. I think you get the idea.
In much the same way I believe communities tend to share similar approaches to God. Certain things can be said of the faith of the Amish, Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics and Charismatics. The way people view God's imminence, transcendence, the role of the Spirit, etc.
Thinking still larger, people across certain periods in history (within the same culture) can be said to think in similar ways. Nowadays Americans, Western Europeans, Australians and a few others could be said to have similar world views. We share similar cultures, cultural origins and economic conditions. One of the reasons institutions like Asbury Theological Seminary are blessed is because of the Beeson International Center which brings Christian leaders from all over the world to our campus. We are blessed to study and worship together - to share life.
People from other parts of the globe have a very different way of looking at the world. Their frames of reference are totally different than ours. This differing world view has repercussions with regard to the way these guests of ours relate to God.
Now we have come full circle to the modern - postmodern thing. Beginning with art critics and historians a movement has arisen to describe a shift of paradigms going on in our culture. Unlike any other period in history we are trying to describe the shift while it is happening and even forecast where we may be headed. These are educated people to be sure. They are, however, in among this shift as we all are. Some people claim the future can be forecasted to some degree by following trends in Europe, Australia and New Zealand which have tended to be anywhere from 20 to 50 years ahead of the US in similar shifts. These and other techniques can only be so helpful, however, since the period we are in can only truly be considered once we are out of it.
So here is a twist to our normal conversation: To what degree does talking about the direction our society is taking actually determine where its course?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
On Balance and Christianity
Many late night conversations with the roommate turn out to be blog-worthy chats. The problem is that these exchanges occur in the wee hours of the morning once I have arrived home from work. This post is one such conversation from my point of view. It draws heavily on what I have come to understand is an Eastern concept of balance and the writings of Richard Foster and Marjorie Thompson on spiritual disciplines.
Like many of our conversations this started with drinking. A friend of Ted's is heading up a singles ministry that involves twenty-somethings from a few area churches. One gathering announcement on facebook or somewhere talked about an upcoming event and had a strangely awkward sentence at the end talking about drinking. "Remember, we are being watched and must put forth the best witness we can. Therefore, we will not be drinking at our event."
Many of my readers can likely tell where I might be going with this. I am part of the Wesleyan Church, a Wesleyan-Arminian Church in the Holiness movement. We are a "dry" Church, meaning that we, as a people of like faith, have seen that alcohol in many respects has been an agent for evil and victimized children, wives and families. At the same time I have many family members, friends who were Wesleyans or friends who went to Houghton with me (a Wesleyan school) who do drink from time to time. Certainly I cannot say that each of these are responsible adults, but I respect these people and the integrity of their faith. I have come to believe that people of faith and good conscience can fall on both sides of this fence.
That brought my thoughts to a chapter of Marjorie Thompson's book Soul Feast discussing the importance of fasting. She sees two main reasons for fasting in the Bible. Primarily, fasting is seen as a personal or corporate means of repentance "and humble supplication before God in the face of imminent destruction or calamity (See Joel 2, Jonah 3 and Esther 4). The second purpose of a fast was to prepare oneself inwardly for receiving the necessary strength and grace to complete a mission of faithful service in God's name." (Thompson, 76)
Thompson goes on to explore fasting from the perspective of the Church's Lenten season. Founded on the idea of Israel's 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and Jesus' own 40 days of wilderness temptations, the Christian Church has long observed a period of fasting for 40 days prior to the Easter feast. She describes the entire Church calendar as "rhythms of feasting and fasting." (Thompson, 78)
Further back we can find foundations of this practice in the garden. "In Eden, God gave Adam and Eve every fruit of the garden but one. That one fruit, out of a world of variety, indicated a limit to human freedom. Accepting that limit was the single abstinence required by God. It was a way of recognizing that human beings are dependent on God for life. But Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be seduced by the serpent (a figure of God's enemy, Satan). The serpent's question inverts the reality of the situation, 'Did God say, "You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" (Gen. 3.1, emphasis added). Instead of a prohibition against one fruit, God's warning is presented as a prohibition against all fruit. The temptation, it seems, is to see a single boundary as so restrictive that it negates the good of all other freedoms. Adam and Eve took the bait. Metapohorically, they "broke the fast," transgressing the one limit required of them. In refusing to accept the natural bounds of their creaturehood, they reached for the very place of God. They wanted it all." (Thompson, 79) We are, then, returning to the garden in our 40 days of Lent to remember that God is God and we are not. God is the source and sustenance of creation, including humanity.
This is a beautiful picture of fasting on a personal level - even the whole of the spiritual disciplines. We seek to place God back at the center of life, and in the case of fasting and other disciplines of restriction, we do this by voluntarily limiting our own freedoms. Could not the same be said of communities? Mennonites and Holiness communities and denominations (among others) are by their example seeking to create "fasts" to offset the "feasts" the rest of the world seems to be bingeing on.
The question is this, I suppose. Has God asked you to exercise freedom in Christ - and in that freedom display restraint - or has God asked you to participate in the self-giving of fasting for the sake of humanity?
Like many of our conversations this started with drinking. A friend of Ted's is heading up a singles ministry that involves twenty-somethings from a few area churches. One gathering announcement on facebook or somewhere talked about an upcoming event and had a strangely awkward sentence at the end talking about drinking. "Remember, we are being watched and must put forth the best witness we can. Therefore, we will not be drinking at our event."
Many of my readers can likely tell where I might be going with this. I am part of the Wesleyan Church, a Wesleyan-Arminian Church in the Holiness movement. We are a "dry" Church, meaning that we, as a people of like faith, have seen that alcohol in many respects has been an agent for evil and victimized children, wives and families. At the same time I have many family members, friends who were Wesleyans or friends who went to Houghton with me (a Wesleyan school) who do drink from time to time. Certainly I cannot say that each of these are responsible adults, but I respect these people and the integrity of their faith. I have come to believe that people of faith and good conscience can fall on both sides of this fence.
That brought my thoughts to a chapter of Marjorie Thompson's book Soul Feast discussing the importance of fasting. She sees two main reasons for fasting in the Bible. Primarily, fasting is seen as a personal or corporate means of repentance "and humble supplication before God in the face of imminent destruction or calamity (See Joel 2, Jonah 3 and Esther 4). The second purpose of a fast was to prepare oneself inwardly for receiving the necessary strength and grace to complete a mission of faithful service in God's name." (Thompson, 76)
Thompson goes on to explore fasting from the perspective of the Church's Lenten season. Founded on the idea of Israel's 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and Jesus' own 40 days of wilderness temptations, the Christian Church has long observed a period of fasting for 40 days prior to the Easter feast. She describes the entire Church calendar as "rhythms of feasting and fasting." (Thompson, 78)
Further back we can find foundations of this practice in the garden. "In Eden, God gave Adam and Eve every fruit of the garden but one. That one fruit, out of a world of variety, indicated a limit to human freedom. Accepting that limit was the single abstinence required by God. It was a way of recognizing that human beings are dependent on God for life. But Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be seduced by the serpent (a figure of God's enemy, Satan). The serpent's question inverts the reality of the situation, 'Did God say, "You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" (Gen. 3.1, emphasis added). Instead of a prohibition against one fruit, God's warning is presented as a prohibition against all fruit. The temptation, it seems, is to see a single boundary as so restrictive that it negates the good of all other freedoms. Adam and Eve took the bait. Metapohorically, they "broke the fast," transgressing the one limit required of them. In refusing to accept the natural bounds of their creaturehood, they reached for the very place of God. They wanted it all." (Thompson, 79) We are, then, returning to the garden in our 40 days of Lent to remember that God is God and we are not. God is the source and sustenance of creation, including humanity.
This is a beautiful picture of fasting on a personal level - even the whole of the spiritual disciplines. We seek to place God back at the center of life, and in the case of fasting and other disciplines of restriction, we do this by voluntarily limiting our own freedoms. Could not the same be said of communities? Mennonites and Holiness communities and denominations (among others) are by their example seeking to create "fasts" to offset the "feasts" the rest of the world seems to be bingeing on.
The question is this, I suppose. Has God asked you to exercise freedom in Christ - and in that freedom display restraint - or has God asked you to participate in the self-giving of fasting for the sake of humanity?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Sabbatical
Blogging and journaling have been closely related in my experience. Content traditionally reserved for one medium has often found its way onto the other. This season has changed that to some degree. In Spiritual Formation we talked about praying through Scripture as a spiritual exercise, especially the Psalms.
The Psalms? Really? The Psalms have been an enigma to me for as long as I can remember. After all, what enemies have I that are at my feet? I am an emotional person (no matter how well that is normally held back) but the Psalms? They are totally removed from the story of my life. Then I tried journaling with the sort of abandon David and his contemporaries needed to be expressing these raw feelings to God. Now the Psalms, though distant still, have been given new life in my reading.
So, lately I am bearing my soul to God in a new way and a different forum reducing my blog load. (I had some good comments on a few recent posts - yes, I will respond! The Beauty post was part of a Postmodern fan-hitting in the groups in which I travel so I had to take a step back from the conversation/argument to collect my thoughts.)
How about you? Have you allowed yourself journal - or even pray - to God without using "thees" and "thous"? Have you exposed your innermost feelings to him? Have you yet discovered the intimacy that comes from not only knowing God knows all about your thought life, but have determined to take God on a guided-tour through your innermost secrets? You would be amazed at what new ways God is given permission to renovate your life if you take him in further - not stopping at just those prayers that really match a life more holy than the one you are living.
There is a push at school for a sort of bloggers convention - to gather together and promote this "craft." Me? I will be taking a sabbatical with God and my journal.
The Psalms? Really? The Psalms have been an enigma to me for as long as I can remember. After all, what enemies have I that are at my feet? I am an emotional person (no matter how well that is normally held back) but the Psalms? They are totally removed from the story of my life. Then I tried journaling with the sort of abandon David and his contemporaries needed to be expressing these raw feelings to God. Now the Psalms, though distant still, have been given new life in my reading.
So, lately I am bearing my soul to God in a new way and a different forum reducing my blog load. (I had some good comments on a few recent posts - yes, I will respond! The Beauty post was part of a Postmodern fan-hitting in the groups in which I travel so I had to take a step back from the conversation/argument to collect my thoughts.)
How about you? Have you allowed yourself journal - or even pray - to God without using "thees" and "thous"? Have you exposed your innermost feelings to him? Have you yet discovered the intimacy that comes from not only knowing God knows all about your thought life, but have determined to take God on a guided-tour through your innermost secrets? You would be amazed at what new ways God is given permission to renovate your life if you take him in further - not stopping at just those prayers that really match a life more holy than the one you are living.
There is a push at school for a sort of bloggers convention - to gather together and promote this "craft." Me? I will be taking a sabbatical with God and my journal.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Spring in Kentucky
Although Easter is earlier this year than it will be again for another 150 years (or so I have heard), spring still hits here in Kentucky far earlier than in Maine. This beautiful tree was spotted while I was at a stoplight leaving church today. Enjoy!
Via Crucis
Easter Craziness
Happy Easter, everyone!
Here is a crazy link the suitemate found today. Check it out at your own risk...
Easter Ritual
Here is a crazy link the suitemate found today. Check it out at your own risk...
Easter Ritual
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Beauty
Our church is in the middle of a wonderful transition to a Postmodern paradigm marked by many encouraging things. Among them is the demotion of reason (some may say truth) and the elevation of beauty. What does this mean, you may ask? Let me give you a good illustration - or at least give my best shot at it.
Today in Spiritual Formation we listened to a eulogy delivered by the former president of Asbury College, Dr. Dennis Kinlaw. He was memorializing the life of Dr. Caruth (spelling?) who was the previous Prayer and Spiritual Formation professor, and in fact, the first such professor in a Protestant Seminary.
Dr. Kinlaw's words were gracious and honoring. Without ever having known about Dr. Caruth's life, his ministry, his passions or his calling we came closer to knowing the type of Child of God he strove to be, endeavored to be, encouraged others to be. He was truly intimate with God - a true God hearer who lived life for the sake of others.
Today in chapel we heard a lecture delivered by Dr. Francis Watson of Durham University in England. The comment that links to this story was quite off-the-cuff (especially in a lecture setting like we had). Of the sacrificial system he was describing at the time, he said, "the priests were given the flesh of the burnt offering to eat and God was given the aroma."
I parallel these sacrifices in my mind, and with that of Jesus' sacrifice. God was pleased with the perfect sacrifices brought to the altar, with his son's body, anointed by a prostitute for burial, and with the life given to service to himself through intimacy and service to others.
I was inspired by these thoughts to think of the sort of bride I am preparing to be for Christ's return, both in the respect that I am his bride the same way the church I serve is his bride. Let me be the sort of mate befitting the Prince.
No longer Gomer. No longer Gomer.
Today in Spiritual Formation we listened to a eulogy delivered by the former president of Asbury College, Dr. Dennis Kinlaw. He was memorializing the life of Dr. Caruth (spelling?) who was the previous Prayer and Spiritual Formation professor, and in fact, the first such professor in a Protestant Seminary.
Dr. Kinlaw's words were gracious and honoring. Without ever having known about Dr. Caruth's life, his ministry, his passions or his calling we came closer to knowing the type of Child of God he strove to be, endeavored to be, encouraged others to be. He was truly intimate with God - a true God hearer who lived life for the sake of others.
Today in chapel we heard a lecture delivered by Dr. Francis Watson of Durham University in England. The comment that links to this story was quite off-the-cuff (especially in a lecture setting like we had). Of the sacrificial system he was describing at the time, he said, "the priests were given the flesh of the burnt offering to eat and God was given the aroma."
I parallel these sacrifices in my mind, and with that of Jesus' sacrifice. God was pleased with the perfect sacrifices brought to the altar, with his son's body, anointed by a prostitute for burial, and with the life given to service to himself through intimacy and service to others.
I was inspired by these thoughts to think of the sort of bride I am preparing to be for Christ's return, both in the respect that I am his bride the same way the church I serve is his bride. Let me be the sort of mate befitting the Prince.
No longer Gomer. No longer Gomer.
Can you read this?
Fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae an itnerseting mnid too!
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt
blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a
rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in
waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt
tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed
it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos
not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was
ipmorantt!
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt
blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a
rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in
waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt
tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed
it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos
not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was
ipmorantt!
Monday, March 03, 2008
Trivial Trivialness
This is a fun link for all you fellow bloggers. Not sure how the algorithms work, but it is interesting!
Blog Readability Test
Blog Readability Test
Saturday, February 23, 2008
How am I the Weaker Brother?
A natural extension to the conversation we have had below is the practical workings-out of the weaker brother consideration.
A friend posited whether we should, as Christian leaders, be educating ourselves in the identification of such weaker brothers (or perhaps weaker siblings). There may be ways Psychologists, Sociologists and Theologians together may be able to help us identify the issues some believers have with certain behaviors that may not be expressly prohibited in the Bible.
Then we might also consider an introspective approach - how am I the weaker sibling? What things cause me to stumble?
The real question is, though, how do we create an environment where these things can be shared? How do we share these things with others if we are the "weaker" sibling? How exactly do we respond if we have been told of a weakness in a sibling? What limits ought I put on my freedom? Do I limit these freedoms at all times or only around those who would be offended? What of institutions and denominations that ask us to limit our freedoms for the sake of others as an oath of community - do these apply when I am in my home alone with family? What about on the road visiting unbelieving friends who wouldn't understand if I refused to participate with them? Who does it hurt?
A friend posited whether we should, as Christian leaders, be educating ourselves in the identification of such weaker brothers (or perhaps weaker siblings). There may be ways Psychologists, Sociologists and Theologians together may be able to help us identify the issues some believers have with certain behaviors that may not be expressly prohibited in the Bible.
Then we might also consider an introspective approach - how am I the weaker sibling? What things cause me to stumble?
The real question is, though, how do we create an environment where these things can be shared? How do we share these things with others if we are the "weaker" sibling? How exactly do we respond if we have been told of a weakness in a sibling? What limits ought I put on my freedom? Do I limit these freedoms at all times or only around those who would be offended? What of institutions and denominations that ask us to limit our freedoms for the sake of others as an oath of community - do these apply when I am in my home alone with family? What about on the road visiting unbelieving friends who wouldn't understand if I refused to participate with them? Who does it hurt?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
Lenten Reader
This season the seminary has a new reader. It is simply amazing - both in content and in style. You can get a taste of the reader at its website, www.asburyreader.com.
Come read scripture with us!
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Orders
The idea I am about to express is not mine - it came up during a Theological theme exploration last semester at the Asbury Wesleyan Community and I think it was Dr. Dongell who first posed the possibility.
My last two posts have been a result of this same drive a few of us Wesleyans at Asbury are feeling. Where is our slavery? Where is this generation's fight for civil rights for women and other minorities? What is our generation's incarnation of the activist spirit? A few possibilities were offered; environmentalism, immigration, etc, but then the question of mode comes. In their day, Orange Scott, Luther Lee and company were compelled to create a new denomination. Certainly it is not necessary to create a new body based on new convictions held by a pioneering few, especially if I am among that few and have no particular idea what sorts of issues will be so important. What other courses of change have we as a Protestant, Holiness movement?
The Catholic Church is our example here, I believe. A friend of mine spent last night at an abbey on retreat. The Abbey of Gethsemani in Trappist, Kentucky, is a Benedictine order. As I understand them, orders are a particular kind of regimented here are many Cistercian orders who are Benedictines who wanted to return to the strict observance of the Rule of Saint Benedict. This abbey is the home of Thomas Merton who was a very popular and well-published monk of our century.
Orders are important to the faith and within the Catholic Church especially. Rather than start denominations certain faithful believers of the first century took upon themselves the task of convincing the church that the Spirt asked them to live a lifestyle contrary to the norm. After gaining recognition from the church they began following the Spirit and have enriched the church by their example.
We modern Christians tend to think there is a singular Christian life we are to all imitate - that of Christ. I believe this is a valid goal. However, rather than think of ourselves as imitators of God, orders tend to make us think of the church as an imitator of Christ. In such a way we embrace the Spirit's leading individuals on different paths and enrich our own faith by communing with them.
Monastic life is often criticized as contrary to the great commission. I think this is a valid point. Certainly there are many abbeys and convents whose orders do not include vows of silence where mission work does occur.
The question for commenting: In light of this post, how does the Spirit work?
Another question: How could the Wesleyan Church (or your own denomination) embrace the concept of orders today?
My last two posts have been a result of this same drive a few of us Wesleyans at Asbury are feeling. Where is our slavery? Where is this generation's fight for civil rights for women and other minorities? What is our generation's incarnation of the activist spirit? A few possibilities were offered; environmentalism, immigration, etc, but then the question of mode comes. In their day, Orange Scott, Luther Lee and company were compelled to create a new denomination. Certainly it is not necessary to create a new body based on new convictions held by a pioneering few, especially if I am among that few and have no particular idea what sorts of issues will be so important. What other courses of change have we as a Protestant, Holiness movement?
The Catholic Church is our example here, I believe. A friend of mine spent last night at an abbey on retreat. The Abbey of Gethsemani in Trappist, Kentucky, is a Benedictine order. As I understand them, orders are a particular kind of regimented here are many Cistercian orders who are Benedictines who wanted to return to the strict observance of the Rule of Saint Benedict. This abbey is the home of Thomas Merton who was a very popular and well-published monk of our century.
Orders are important to the faith and within the Catholic Church especially. Rather than start denominations certain faithful believers of the first century took upon themselves the task of convincing the church that the Spirt asked them to live a lifestyle contrary to the norm. After gaining recognition from the church they began following the Spirit and have enriched the church by their example.
We modern Christians tend to think there is a singular Christian life we are to all imitate - that of Christ. I believe this is a valid goal. However, rather than think of ourselves as imitators of God, orders tend to make us think of the church as an imitator of Christ. In such a way we embrace the Spirit's leading individuals on different paths and enrich our own faith by communing with them.
Monastic life is often criticized as contrary to the great commission. I think this is a valid point. Certainly there are many abbeys and convents whose orders do not include vows of silence where mission work does occur.
The question for commenting: In light of this post, how does the Spirit work?
Another question: How could the Wesleyan Church (or your own denomination) embrace the concept of orders today?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Which Comes First - the Discipline or the Egg?
As part of our polity class Dr. Kind had us draw up pretend memorials to send to General Conference to revise the Discipline. Mine, I decided, was a membership requirement describing a member's responsibility to be a responsible steward of natural resources.
My question is this: Do we change Discipline to match social reality or do we change it to match our goals as community? In the last post many have commented on gluttony and other social evils our church should be taking a stand on (sometimes distracted by arguments about drinking, etc). Should we have a grassroots movement of activism to get the church focussed and then change the Discipline to match the new movement, or do we change the Discipline because 2/3 of the GC and of the districts believe this is a wise thing?
My question is this: Do we change Discipline to match social reality or do we change it to match our goals as community? In the last post many have commented on gluttony and other social evils our church should be taking a stand on (sometimes distracted by arguments about drinking, etc). Should we have a grassroots movement of activism to get the church focussed and then change the Discipline to match the new movement, or do we change the Discipline because 2/3 of the GC and of the districts believe this is a wise thing?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Christian Liberty and Alcohol
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
-Romans 8.1-22, New International Version of the Bible
Our Wesleyan Polity and Discipline class has spent a great deal of time discussing the "archaic" drinking and substance abuse clause in the Discipline of the church. It is widely considered the most controversial paragraph in the publication to be considered for discussion or change this year at General Conference.
Often times the proponents or opponents head to the Bible in search of texts condoning or condemning drinking or drunkenness, but I hope here to take a different approach.
Attitudes behind this debate confound me. Our church is in a sad position, I believe. Those in favor of taming the Discipline's language of prohibition are no doubt looking out for the health of the church assuming that adding these people who would be members aside from this issue would be assets to our fellowship. The Community v. Covenant debate is here evident - those interested in joining our congregations have been taken in as disciples under Community auspices and have remained there, rather than becoming full members, because of the issue of social drinking.
Community membership is a good idea. As Community members we are able to open dialog with and disciple those the Holy Spirit is guiding to us, but it should be assumed that those joining our communities are taking on the privilege of Community membership are aware of the church's rich history of abstinence from substances - this should not be a surprise that comes up during the temporary period they are discipled as Community members. People should not become Community members after discipling of this nature who disagree with the church on this point.
Further, the real issue here is that of Christian Liberty. I personally believe it is not morally wrong to drink, as it were, socially. Some people of good conscience say social drinking is wrong on the grounds patronage of the industry results in the further violation of families and abuse by those who are unfortunate enough not to be in control of their consumption. I would not go quite that far in my argument, but I can see its merit.
My argument is against the attitudes involved. Are we truly considering our brothers and sisters in the Lord if we exercise our liberty to engage in social drinking if we know full well that weaker siblings' faith does not allow them to as well? How self centered we are to flaunt our liberty! Why can't we suspend our liberty for the sake of the Kingdom?
As for addressing the topic in the discipline at all, I believe we have here a beautiful example of our rich heritage of considering the weaker sibling. God has given us this issue, no doubt, in part because of the liberty implications - I hope we would be wrestling with some other hot topic if alcohol or substances had never been invented - simply because the church needs reminding, as we are told in 1 Corinthians 6.12, "All things are lawful for me, but not all are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (NASB)
20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
Amen
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
-Romans 8.1-22, New International Version of the Bible
Our Wesleyan Polity and Discipline class has spent a great deal of time discussing the "archaic" drinking and substance abuse clause in the Discipline of the church. It is widely considered the most controversial paragraph in the publication to be considered for discussion or change this year at General Conference.
Often times the proponents or opponents head to the Bible in search of texts condoning or condemning drinking or drunkenness, but I hope here to take a different approach.
Attitudes behind this debate confound me. Our church is in a sad position, I believe. Those in favor of taming the Discipline's language of prohibition are no doubt looking out for the health of the church assuming that adding these people who would be members aside from this issue would be assets to our fellowship. The Community v. Covenant debate is here evident - those interested in joining our congregations have been taken in as disciples under Community auspices and have remained there, rather than becoming full members, because of the issue of social drinking.
Community membership is a good idea. As Community members we are able to open dialog with and disciple those the Holy Spirit is guiding to us, but it should be assumed that those joining our communities are taking on the privilege of Community membership are aware of the church's rich history of abstinence from substances - this should not be a surprise that comes up during the temporary period they are discipled as Community members. People should not become Community members after discipling of this nature who disagree with the church on this point.
Further, the real issue here is that of Christian Liberty. I personally believe it is not morally wrong to drink, as it were, socially. Some people of good conscience say social drinking is wrong on the grounds patronage of the industry results in the further violation of families and abuse by those who are unfortunate enough not to be in control of their consumption. I would not go quite that far in my argument, but I can see its merit.
My argument is against the attitudes involved. Are we truly considering our brothers and sisters in the Lord if we exercise our liberty to engage in social drinking if we know full well that weaker siblings' faith does not allow them to as well? How self centered we are to flaunt our liberty! Why can't we suspend our liberty for the sake of the Kingdom?
As for addressing the topic in the discipline at all, I believe we have here a beautiful example of our rich heritage of considering the weaker sibling. God has given us this issue, no doubt, in part because of the liberty implications - I hope we would be wrestling with some other hot topic if alcohol or substances had never been invented - simply because the church needs reminding, as we are told in 1 Corinthians 6.12, "All things are lawful for me, but not all are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (NASB)
20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
Amen
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Today's Sermon
I am copying and pasting my sermon from today for public comment. I think Gram was a little confused by it. Another woman said, "I think there were 5 or 6 good sermons in there." Not sure if that meant she thought it could be shorter or that I didn't develop any one idea too well. (She may be right on that point...) Lets see what you think...
Halloween spills into Thanksgiving and Thanksgiving into Christmas. It has long been lamented that Thanksgiving, for example, cannot be truly appreciated because of what retailers have done to it - no sooner has Halloween ended than Christmas trees, decorations and toppers are available in, of all places, Lowe’s home improvement warehouse!
The church is guilty of a similar eclipsing. The start of the Christian year may be Advent at the beginning of December, but the quintessential holiday Christians celebrate is Resurrection Sunday. This is perhaps appropriate. Part of Jesus’ reason for coming as a child at Christmas was to settle a debt we could not pay - to offer himself as the atonement for our sin. But if we think this is the ONLY reason Jesus had to come to earth, we are preaching an anemic gospel.
Had Jesus only needed to die on the cross for our sins he would have likely come to earth in some extravagant production - down through the clouds for all to see. He wouldn’t necessarily have needed to come as a baby. He wouldn’t have needed to grow up, go to school, learn a trade, and he certainly wouldn’t have spent three years in ministry. After his baptism he would have needed only go straight to Jerusalem and incite the religious authorities to detest him and begin planning his demise. He would have wasted no time getting to the cross, and he certainly wouldn’t have needed to rise again. I have often heard it said that a gospel preached without a resurrected Jesus is empty. Just why is that? If we focus on Easter and forget Christmas we loose it altogether.
To get an idea of why Jesus had to come as he did we must return go the garden. Eden - indeed, the world - was perfect when it was created. After each thing was created - the light, the land and sea, even humankind, God declared it good. Listen to what was said of us when humankind was created, (Gen 1.26-28)
“God spoke: ‘Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature
So that they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, the Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of the Earth.”
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God’s nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them;
“Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of the Earth.”
Of course, this did not last long. After eating of the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil, Adam and Eve’s sin cursed not only themselves, but the whole of creation. Because of the sin of the serpent he was cursed beyond all cattle and wild animals - to slink on his belly and eat dirt all the days of his life and was set at enmity with man. Because of Eve’s sin, womankind was cursed to endure pains in childbirth and to be lorded over by her husband even though she would want to please him. And because of Adam’s sin, mankind was cursed to labor on the earth in pain and toil. As we are told in Genesis 3.17-19,
“The very ground is cursed because of you (speaking to Adam);
getting food from the ground
Will be as painful as having babies is for your wife;
-a quick aside - I guess women can’t really hold the pain of childbirth over her husband and children, can she, if the pain is comparable as this says? Anyway...let me start this again...
you’ll be working in pain all your life long.
The ground will sprout thorns and weeds,
you’ll get your food the hard way,
Planting and tilling and harvesting,
sweating in the fields from dawn to dusk,
Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried;
you started out as dirt, you’ll end up dirt.”
Notice how humankind’s sin cursed the earth - all of creation - the ground damned to produce thorns and weeds. As chief among created beings, created in the image of God, humankind was originally meant to rule the earth - prosper, reproduce and be responsible for everything in it. But because of our disobedience have come into the world pain, domineering, labor and toil just for sustenance.
The very next pericope in Genesis brings us to Noah and his family. Noah alone, of all the people on earth, pleased God. Genesis 6.5-7 says,
“GOD saw that human evil was out of control. People thought evil, imagined evil - evil, evil, evil from morning to night. GOD was sorry he had made the human race in the first place; it broke his heart.
GOD said, ‘I’ll get rid of my ruined creation, make a clean sweep: people, animals, snakes and bugs, birds - the works. I’m sorry I made them.”
All this was the responsibility of humans. As caretakers of creation our actions have doomed the Earth. Human evil alone placed the whole of creation at odds with God. And so the flood was sent to start anew - a sort of second creation.
After the flood God promised never to send another flood to destroy the earth, sealing the promise with the rainbow, and gave instructions to Noah and his sons, blessing them,
“Prosper! Reproduce! Fill the Earth! Every living creature - birds, animals, fish - will fall under your spell and be afraid of you. You’re responsible for them. All living creatures are yours for food; just as I gave you the plants, now I give you everything else.”
But just as this second creation was not as glorious as the first, there is already a stain of the fall on it - instead of being responsible for creation we see that every living creature will be afraid of us - the curse of the serpent extended to every living creature.
Without exploring the whole of Israel’s narrative between Noah and Advent, I will highlight one more aspect of our shared heritage - The Abrahamic covenant. At 100 and 91 years old respectively, Abraham and Sarah gave birth to Isaac, the son of the covenant. Isaac was still young when God instructed Abraham to sacrifice him on Mount Moriah. We all know the story well - “God will provide himself a lamb,” Abraham comforted a confused Isaac. And he did. As the knife was raised above Isaac, the angel of the Lord stopped Abraham and provided a ram caught in the thicket in Isaac’s place. Because of Abraham’s obedience in this and other tests he entered into covenant with God - covenant that would make his line great and a blessing to all nations of the Earth. At Mount Sinai God provides us with the details of the covenant - our end of the bargain. Ten commandments God writes on stone for the people and are kept in the Ark of the Covenant, but there are also many other laws God gave that day. Such as, “If someone hits father or mother, the penalty is death. If someone uncovers a cistern or digs a pit and leaves it open and an ox or donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit must pay whatever the animal is worth to its owner but can keep the dead animal” and so on. We move now to Exodus 22 to a very interesting set of laws in verses 21-24,
“Don’t abuse or take advantage of strangers; you, remember, were once strangers in Egypt.
“Don’t mistreat widows or orphans. If you do, and they cry out to me, you can be sure I’ll take them seriously; I’ll show my anger and come raging among you with the sword, and your wives will end up widows and your children orphans.”
God’s part in this relationship? God was to bless Abraham and his descendents - out of him would spring many generations, more numerous than the stars, out of his lineage would rise kings, and through him all nations of the earth would be blessed. Quite a promise to a man with a barren wife!
Between Mt. Sinai and the first Christmas day there were many things that took place, but we have a pretty good foundation now for where I am going. God created the world and humankind as its caretakers. Humankind rebelled and so cursed the entire earth, but God was already working on the remedy for human sin - he made a covenant with Abraham to foretell of his promised deliverance from our wretched state. The earth was created perfect and our job was to care for it, but after the fall and the flood we were given to lord over the land and all the animals within it would fear us and heed our commands. At Sinai we were told our end of the bargain - we are to keep his commands and thus stay in his good graces, and as I highlighted, care for the orphan, the widow, and deal justly with strangers because we were once strangers in Egypt.
It was a few hundred years I believe between Sinai and Christ’s coming - well, 42 generations between Abraham and Christ according to Saint Matthew’s account. Think of the first to know of Christ’s birth. Who were they? Luke tells us angels announced to shepherds on a hillside the birth of a Savior, Messiah and Master. In case you are wondering, shepherding is not for the elite. Pre-exodus, Abraham’s large entourage included shepherds but they were lowly slave boys. Angels appeared to shepherds proclaiming Jesus’ birth as a happy event for the entire world! Then back to Matthew - Wise men (or scholars, as the Message translates it) from the east have come some distance to worship the newborn king of the Jews. I say they travelled some distance because the Wise men have observed the star for many months at least - when they hoodwink Herod he orders all male babies two years and younger be killed to protect his claim to the throne. And this age - two years - was a number he learned from the wise men who had described their observations of the star and when it first appeared. Another thing to think about - I have done a search for mention of a star in the Hebrew scriptures to see what they believed this star in the east corresponded to and why they thought it heralded the birth of a King of the Jews - nothing. As Matthew records, Herod, after being told of the star by the wise men, gathers his scholars to learn where this child would be born and so points the wise men to Bethlehem because of Micah’s prophecy, which says,
“Its you, Bethlehem, in Judah’s land,
no longer bringing up the rear.
From you will come the leader
who will shepherd-rule my people, my Israel.”
But you notice there is no mention of a star to tell us of this great event occurring. Whose scriptures were the wise men reading, then? Their own? But that would mean God had worked through pagan scripture to point these particular scholars to a particular star at a particular time so they would be to Jerusalem by the time Jesus was born. If the wise men had not come there would have been a great many other prophecies unfulfilled as Matthew tells us - prophecy told us Jesus was called out of Egypt and that he would be called a Nazarene - both moves of Jesus’ family prompted by angels’ warnings in dreams to Joseph, and both set into motion because the wise men had visited Herod and not kept their deal with him. So we have the first parties to know of Jesus’ birth in shepherds, young boys, maybe slaves and wise scholars of another nationality altogether. Can you see how perhaps Matthew is trying to say Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham - because of YOU all nations of the earth will be blessed?
So Jesus grows and matures. He is baptized by John in the Jordan, led into the wilderness where he is tempted by Satan and attended by angels. When he emerges he is a different person - a man on a mission. Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Message of God, Mark quotes Jesus, (1.14-15)
“Time’s up! God’s kingdom is here. Change your life and believe the Message.”
Notice Jesus does not immediately run to Jerusalem. For three years he is in the wilderness of Galilee, in Nazareth, keeping away from his ultimate demise in Jerusalem. He spends time teaching, preaching, traveling from place to place healing the sick, raising the dead and delivering the possessed of their demon possessors. This three years is in contrast to a week’s worth of time that ends in his resurrection from the dead. In fact, this is all before he claimed he was the Messiah sent by God.
Our Gospel lesson from Luke this morning shows us how Jesus intended to show his Messiahship - not through his death as that time had not yet come - but through his acts of mercy.
“Go back and tell John what you have just seen and heard:
“The blind see,
The lame walk,
Lepers are cleansed,
The deaf hear,
The dead are raised
The wretched of the earth
have God’s salvation hospitality extended to them.”
Think of the orphan and widow language of Moses’ law - do you hear an echo here? “The wretched of the earth have God’s salvation-hospitality extended to them?” In heralding the Kingdom of God Jesus is in effect pushing back the curse, one miracle at a time. Pain, sorrow, marginalization, fear, shame, even demons flee before him. Do they flee before us?
Before getting ready for the day yesterday I was thinking about our society of materialism. I thought I needed more jeans this year so I asked for a few for Christmas. I ended up with four new pair! Four pair of jeans to add to the drawer of jeans I brought back with me from school. Two pair have a color that is still in style but the fit is not, so I prefer not to wear them. Another I bought with a gift certificate from Christmas last year but I ended up home with them before I realized they had holes in them - purposefully! There all shades of colors, (denims, blacks, etc) different washes of blue or black, different degrees of stressing and distressing, and now holes! Then there are the host of non-jean pants in my closet. How many of you who are older than me had so many things in your closet as a child or young adult? I have often heard it said that each child had two sets of clothes - one for work and play and the other for school. Was there something inadequate with that system? I can’t imagine there was. We are concerned with saving the environment now, which as stewards of the earth we should all be concerned about, but here we are buying dozens of pairs of pants for each child, and each adult, wearing them one day and then throwing them in the hamper - if we are concerned with the environment won’t we wear the pants a few times and then wash them? Shouldn’t we stop buying so many jeans in the first place? I really should find out who said this quote because it is very striking - something to this affect, “The pair of pants hanging in the closet that you never wear are not yours - they belong to the person on the street who has none. Shame on us for leaving them there!” We are hoarders in America. Further, we invest in companies that make the latest style of jean because we know people will be out buying them for themselves or their children - but do they have the money to buy $80 or $90 jeans? Not to mention the practices the company employs in Taiwan where the jeans are actually made... We are caught in a trap of materialism and can’t seem to get out. Do the Amish and Mennonites have the answer? Some days I think they do.
This is just an example of the bondage we find or put ourselves in - the same that result from the fall and humankind’s disobedience. The same Jesus was crusading against in his three years of ministry - disease, sickness, evil of all sorts.
When we tell our story to others, what do we say of our deliverance? Do we give them some grand monologue in three and four-syllable theological terms about our justification or sanctification, then describe our stance for or against John Wesley, Calvin or Luther on this or that minute point? Or do we tell people plainly how Jesus delivered us from self-condemnation, drunkenness, smoking, illness, disease, or other obsession? Which is more relatable, more powerful? Furthermore - what do we do to combat materialism, substance abuse, poverty, hunger, homelessness and disease? Are we really disciples of Jesus if we preach a gospel of reconciliation with a wrathful God and are not working right alongside Jesus to turn back the curse any way we see it?
I visited a Greek Orthodox Church in Kentucky this fall and was I ever blessed! The congregation is still small and meets in a strip mall storefront just 10 minutes from campus. The sanctuary is decorated with beautiful gold icons of Jesus, and a few others. There are no pews in this church save a bench all around the room for the feeble - children and adults stand in the center of the room participating in the worship service. The whole service is in plain chant - the prayers to begin, the congregational responses, the epistle and gospel readings. The most impressive part of the service to me was the gospel reading itself. Until a certain time everyone is standing in families all around the room participating in the service in their own little groups - until the Priest grabs the large gilded book containing the gospels. At this point, he picks it up off the lectern and brings it down to the floor where the congregation is standing. Everyone in the group gathers to the front of the sanctuary as one body, where the Priest is, chanting through the day’s reading from the gospel. The symbolism is rich - God sent his only son from heaven to earth to dwell among us - listen to John’s rendering of this, (1.14)
“The Word became flesh and blood,
and moved into our neighborhood.
We saw the glory with our own eyes,
the one-of-a-kind glory,
like Father, like Son,
Generous inside and out,
true from start to finish.”
True, Jesus died taking the penalty of our sins on himself - but he lived so that we might live. He lived to show us how to live. He died to satisfy God’s holy need for blood to forgive sins and pass over us, but he rose again to prove that he was indeed the Son of God and to enable us, as he was enabled by God, to (Matt 28.18)
“Go out and train everyone we meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Amen.
Halloween spills into Thanksgiving and Thanksgiving into Christmas. It has long been lamented that Thanksgiving, for example, cannot be truly appreciated because of what retailers have done to it - no sooner has Halloween ended than Christmas trees, decorations and toppers are available in, of all places, Lowe’s home improvement warehouse!
The church is guilty of a similar eclipsing. The start of the Christian year may be Advent at the beginning of December, but the quintessential holiday Christians celebrate is Resurrection Sunday. This is perhaps appropriate. Part of Jesus’ reason for coming as a child at Christmas was to settle a debt we could not pay - to offer himself as the atonement for our sin. But if we think this is the ONLY reason Jesus had to come to earth, we are preaching an anemic gospel.
Had Jesus only needed to die on the cross for our sins he would have likely come to earth in some extravagant production - down through the clouds for all to see. He wouldn’t necessarily have needed to come as a baby. He wouldn’t have needed to grow up, go to school, learn a trade, and he certainly wouldn’t have spent three years in ministry. After his baptism he would have needed only go straight to Jerusalem and incite the religious authorities to detest him and begin planning his demise. He would have wasted no time getting to the cross, and he certainly wouldn’t have needed to rise again. I have often heard it said that a gospel preached without a resurrected Jesus is empty. Just why is that? If we focus on Easter and forget Christmas we loose it altogether.
To get an idea of why Jesus had to come as he did we must return go the garden. Eden - indeed, the world - was perfect when it was created. After each thing was created - the light, the land and sea, even humankind, God declared it good. Listen to what was said of us when humankind was created, (Gen 1.26-28)
“God spoke: ‘Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature
So that they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, the Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of the Earth.”
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God’s nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them;
“Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of the Earth.”
Of course, this did not last long. After eating of the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil, Adam and Eve’s sin cursed not only themselves, but the whole of creation. Because of the sin of the serpent he was cursed beyond all cattle and wild animals - to slink on his belly and eat dirt all the days of his life and was set at enmity with man. Because of Eve’s sin, womankind was cursed to endure pains in childbirth and to be lorded over by her husband even though she would want to please him. And because of Adam’s sin, mankind was cursed to labor on the earth in pain and toil. As we are told in Genesis 3.17-19,
“The very ground is cursed because of you (speaking to Adam);
getting food from the ground
Will be as painful as having babies is for your wife;
-a quick aside - I guess women can’t really hold the pain of childbirth over her husband and children, can she, if the pain is comparable as this says? Anyway...let me start this again...
you’ll be working in pain all your life long.
The ground will sprout thorns and weeds,
you’ll get your food the hard way,
Planting and tilling and harvesting,
sweating in the fields from dawn to dusk,
Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried;
you started out as dirt, you’ll end up dirt.”
Notice how humankind’s sin cursed the earth - all of creation - the ground damned to produce thorns and weeds. As chief among created beings, created in the image of God, humankind was originally meant to rule the earth - prosper, reproduce and be responsible for everything in it. But because of our disobedience have come into the world pain, domineering, labor and toil just for sustenance.
The very next pericope in Genesis brings us to Noah and his family. Noah alone, of all the people on earth, pleased God. Genesis 6.5-7 says,
“GOD saw that human evil was out of control. People thought evil, imagined evil - evil, evil, evil from morning to night. GOD was sorry he had made the human race in the first place; it broke his heart.
GOD said, ‘I’ll get rid of my ruined creation, make a clean sweep: people, animals, snakes and bugs, birds - the works. I’m sorry I made them.”
All this was the responsibility of humans. As caretakers of creation our actions have doomed the Earth. Human evil alone placed the whole of creation at odds with God. And so the flood was sent to start anew - a sort of second creation.
After the flood God promised never to send another flood to destroy the earth, sealing the promise with the rainbow, and gave instructions to Noah and his sons, blessing them,
“Prosper! Reproduce! Fill the Earth! Every living creature - birds, animals, fish - will fall under your spell and be afraid of you. You’re responsible for them. All living creatures are yours for food; just as I gave you the plants, now I give you everything else.”
But just as this second creation was not as glorious as the first, there is already a stain of the fall on it - instead of being responsible for creation we see that every living creature will be afraid of us - the curse of the serpent extended to every living creature.
Without exploring the whole of Israel’s narrative between Noah and Advent, I will highlight one more aspect of our shared heritage - The Abrahamic covenant. At 100 and 91 years old respectively, Abraham and Sarah gave birth to Isaac, the son of the covenant. Isaac was still young when God instructed Abraham to sacrifice him on Mount Moriah. We all know the story well - “God will provide himself a lamb,” Abraham comforted a confused Isaac. And he did. As the knife was raised above Isaac, the angel of the Lord stopped Abraham and provided a ram caught in the thicket in Isaac’s place. Because of Abraham’s obedience in this and other tests he entered into covenant with God - covenant that would make his line great and a blessing to all nations of the Earth. At Mount Sinai God provides us with the details of the covenant - our end of the bargain. Ten commandments God writes on stone for the people and are kept in the Ark of the Covenant, but there are also many other laws God gave that day. Such as, “If someone hits father or mother, the penalty is death. If someone uncovers a cistern or digs a pit and leaves it open and an ox or donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit must pay whatever the animal is worth to its owner but can keep the dead animal” and so on. We move now to Exodus 22 to a very interesting set of laws in verses 21-24,
“Don’t abuse or take advantage of strangers; you, remember, were once strangers in Egypt.
“Don’t mistreat widows or orphans. If you do, and they cry out to me, you can be sure I’ll take them seriously; I’ll show my anger and come raging among you with the sword, and your wives will end up widows and your children orphans.”
God’s part in this relationship? God was to bless Abraham and his descendents - out of him would spring many generations, more numerous than the stars, out of his lineage would rise kings, and through him all nations of the earth would be blessed. Quite a promise to a man with a barren wife!
Between Mt. Sinai and the first Christmas day there were many things that took place, but we have a pretty good foundation now for where I am going. God created the world and humankind as its caretakers. Humankind rebelled and so cursed the entire earth, but God was already working on the remedy for human sin - he made a covenant with Abraham to foretell of his promised deliverance from our wretched state. The earth was created perfect and our job was to care for it, but after the fall and the flood we were given to lord over the land and all the animals within it would fear us and heed our commands. At Sinai we were told our end of the bargain - we are to keep his commands and thus stay in his good graces, and as I highlighted, care for the orphan, the widow, and deal justly with strangers because we were once strangers in Egypt.
It was a few hundred years I believe between Sinai and Christ’s coming - well, 42 generations between Abraham and Christ according to Saint Matthew’s account. Think of the first to know of Christ’s birth. Who were they? Luke tells us angels announced to shepherds on a hillside the birth of a Savior, Messiah and Master. In case you are wondering, shepherding is not for the elite. Pre-exodus, Abraham’s large entourage included shepherds but they were lowly slave boys. Angels appeared to shepherds proclaiming Jesus’ birth as a happy event for the entire world! Then back to Matthew - Wise men (or scholars, as the Message translates it) from the east have come some distance to worship the newborn king of the Jews. I say they travelled some distance because the Wise men have observed the star for many months at least - when they hoodwink Herod he orders all male babies two years and younger be killed to protect his claim to the throne. And this age - two years - was a number he learned from the wise men who had described their observations of the star and when it first appeared. Another thing to think about - I have done a search for mention of a star in the Hebrew scriptures to see what they believed this star in the east corresponded to and why they thought it heralded the birth of a King of the Jews - nothing. As Matthew records, Herod, after being told of the star by the wise men, gathers his scholars to learn where this child would be born and so points the wise men to Bethlehem because of Micah’s prophecy, which says,
“Its you, Bethlehem, in Judah’s land,
no longer bringing up the rear.
From you will come the leader
who will shepherd-rule my people, my Israel.”
But you notice there is no mention of a star to tell us of this great event occurring. Whose scriptures were the wise men reading, then? Their own? But that would mean God had worked through pagan scripture to point these particular scholars to a particular star at a particular time so they would be to Jerusalem by the time Jesus was born. If the wise men had not come there would have been a great many other prophecies unfulfilled as Matthew tells us - prophecy told us Jesus was called out of Egypt and that he would be called a Nazarene - both moves of Jesus’ family prompted by angels’ warnings in dreams to Joseph, and both set into motion because the wise men had visited Herod and not kept their deal with him. So we have the first parties to know of Jesus’ birth in shepherds, young boys, maybe slaves and wise scholars of another nationality altogether. Can you see how perhaps Matthew is trying to say Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham - because of YOU all nations of the earth will be blessed?
So Jesus grows and matures. He is baptized by John in the Jordan, led into the wilderness where he is tempted by Satan and attended by angels. When he emerges he is a different person - a man on a mission. Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Message of God, Mark quotes Jesus, (1.14-15)
“Time’s up! God’s kingdom is here. Change your life and believe the Message.”
Notice Jesus does not immediately run to Jerusalem. For three years he is in the wilderness of Galilee, in Nazareth, keeping away from his ultimate demise in Jerusalem. He spends time teaching, preaching, traveling from place to place healing the sick, raising the dead and delivering the possessed of their demon possessors. This three years is in contrast to a week’s worth of time that ends in his resurrection from the dead. In fact, this is all before he claimed he was the Messiah sent by God.
Our Gospel lesson from Luke this morning shows us how Jesus intended to show his Messiahship - not through his death as that time had not yet come - but through his acts of mercy.
“Go back and tell John what you have just seen and heard:
“The blind see,
The lame walk,
Lepers are cleansed,
The deaf hear,
The dead are raised
The wretched of the earth
have God’s salvation hospitality extended to them.”
Think of the orphan and widow language of Moses’ law - do you hear an echo here? “The wretched of the earth have God’s salvation-hospitality extended to them?” In heralding the Kingdom of God Jesus is in effect pushing back the curse, one miracle at a time. Pain, sorrow, marginalization, fear, shame, even demons flee before him. Do they flee before us?
Before getting ready for the day yesterday I was thinking about our society of materialism. I thought I needed more jeans this year so I asked for a few for Christmas. I ended up with four new pair! Four pair of jeans to add to the drawer of jeans I brought back with me from school. Two pair have a color that is still in style but the fit is not, so I prefer not to wear them. Another I bought with a gift certificate from Christmas last year but I ended up home with them before I realized they had holes in them - purposefully! There all shades of colors, (denims, blacks, etc) different washes of blue or black, different degrees of stressing and distressing, and now holes! Then there are the host of non-jean pants in my closet. How many of you who are older than me had so many things in your closet as a child or young adult? I have often heard it said that each child had two sets of clothes - one for work and play and the other for school. Was there something inadequate with that system? I can’t imagine there was. We are concerned with saving the environment now, which as stewards of the earth we should all be concerned about, but here we are buying dozens of pairs of pants for each child, and each adult, wearing them one day and then throwing them in the hamper - if we are concerned with the environment won’t we wear the pants a few times and then wash them? Shouldn’t we stop buying so many jeans in the first place? I really should find out who said this quote because it is very striking - something to this affect, “The pair of pants hanging in the closet that you never wear are not yours - they belong to the person on the street who has none. Shame on us for leaving them there!” We are hoarders in America. Further, we invest in companies that make the latest style of jean because we know people will be out buying them for themselves or their children - but do they have the money to buy $80 or $90 jeans? Not to mention the practices the company employs in Taiwan where the jeans are actually made... We are caught in a trap of materialism and can’t seem to get out. Do the Amish and Mennonites have the answer? Some days I think they do.
This is just an example of the bondage we find or put ourselves in - the same that result from the fall and humankind’s disobedience. The same Jesus was crusading against in his three years of ministry - disease, sickness, evil of all sorts.
When we tell our story to others, what do we say of our deliverance? Do we give them some grand monologue in three and four-syllable theological terms about our justification or sanctification, then describe our stance for or against John Wesley, Calvin or Luther on this or that minute point? Or do we tell people plainly how Jesus delivered us from self-condemnation, drunkenness, smoking, illness, disease, or other obsession? Which is more relatable, more powerful? Furthermore - what do we do to combat materialism, substance abuse, poverty, hunger, homelessness and disease? Are we really disciples of Jesus if we preach a gospel of reconciliation with a wrathful God and are not working right alongside Jesus to turn back the curse any way we see it?
I visited a Greek Orthodox Church in Kentucky this fall and was I ever blessed! The congregation is still small and meets in a strip mall storefront just 10 minutes from campus. The sanctuary is decorated with beautiful gold icons of Jesus, and a few others. There are no pews in this church save a bench all around the room for the feeble - children and adults stand in the center of the room participating in the worship service. The whole service is in plain chant - the prayers to begin, the congregational responses, the epistle and gospel readings. The most impressive part of the service to me was the gospel reading itself. Until a certain time everyone is standing in families all around the room participating in the service in their own little groups - until the Priest grabs the large gilded book containing the gospels. At this point, he picks it up off the lectern and brings it down to the floor where the congregation is standing. Everyone in the group gathers to the front of the sanctuary as one body, where the Priest is, chanting through the day’s reading from the gospel. The symbolism is rich - God sent his only son from heaven to earth to dwell among us - listen to John’s rendering of this, (1.14)
“The Word became flesh and blood,
and moved into our neighborhood.
We saw the glory with our own eyes,
the one-of-a-kind glory,
like Father, like Son,
Generous inside and out,
true from start to finish.”
True, Jesus died taking the penalty of our sins on himself - but he lived so that we might live. He lived to show us how to live. He died to satisfy God’s holy need for blood to forgive sins and pass over us, but he rose again to prove that he was indeed the Son of God and to enable us, as he was enabled by God, to (Matt 28.18)
“Go out and train everyone we meet, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)