As Christians, we tend to throw around the word forgiveness quite a bit, but I wonder - do we really and truly grasp the depth and difficulty behind what TRUE forgiveness is? Jesus tells us we're to forgive 70 x 7 times, which means we forgive wholly and completely. But what does this look like?
On the one hand, our tendency is to go, "Fine, I forgive you, but don't ever darken my doorstep again." Can we really truly forgive, but still keep the relationship broken? Or does forgiveness entail at least in part repairing the relationship?
When God says he forgives us, is he saying, "I forgive you, but I want nothing to do with you"? No, that's not really forgiveness then. Forgiveness in the eyes of God is a large part of putting us back into right relationship - both with Him and with one another. It means relationship is being restored.
Yet - this issue can get quite complicated when you're dealing with someone who has really, really hurt you and wronged you in some fashion. If they come seeking forgiveness, what do you do? You know the dangers of letting them back into your life if they haven't actually changed.
And I suppose that's another element of forgiveness... has the behavior stopped? One of my seminary professors put it this way: sometimes you have to let them hang on the cross for a while before you forgive them. To illustrate his point... should a woman who is being beaten by her husband have to just accept the abuse and say, "Well, I know he's human, so I forgive him?" Or rather, does an intervention need to take place first? A confrontation where his sin is placed before him and the demand made that it stop before we can forgive? But now comes the question - when the behavior stops, and forgiveness can happen - what does that mean for the relationship? Is it fully restored now? Do they pick up where they left off? Does it move forward in new ways? Or do they part company and go their separate ways?
Is not forgiveness about engagement, not disengagement? Case in point - I had someone who harmed me very deeply 15 or so years ago, and did a lot of things that, in my view, made ANY form of relationship that wasn't hostile impossible. 15 years later - he's asking for forgiveness. What do I do? Give him his desired absolution and tell him to go on his way? Has he truly changed, and how do I know? Can I forgive him without knowing whether the behavior has altered? Do I have to engage him in some fashion in order to find out so that true forgiveness can really and truly occur? (My sneaking suspicion is that the behavior has NOT changed, he's just looking to ease his conscience... and is it my place to give him that absolution so he can feel better about himself and what he does?) Is not forgiving without the demand that the behavior stop just further enabling the person, making them think it's okay to hurt people, because well - they'll be forgiven anyway?
We Christians live in a tension - that tension of our "left and right" kingdoms. The right kingdom being the spiritual kingdom where Christ reigns supreme, where forgiveness is complete and we have been put right with God in this kingdom. The left kingdom, however is where sin still is not only present, but continues to run a-muck. It is the temporal world in which we currently live and reside. In this kingdom, the problem of human sinful behavior is still at the forefront of every relationship we're in. Christ has been our "intervention" to put us back into right relationship with God and ultimately with one another - but even there, death is still a necessity in order for "new creation" to occur and that "right relationship" to be fully restored. We cannot fully enter into the "right kingdom" unless we first die to ourselves and are raised to new life.
Yet, as Christians - we're still called to live as "new creations" as best we can. So how do we, in our limited, sinful ways, still realize that "new creation" in our relationships with others through forgiveness? If I forgive, does it not mean that I now have to trust as well that there has been a change in this individual? And if there IS a change, then doesn't that mean we are now open to engage in a newly restored and healed relationship, albeit a very different relationship than before?
Is this possible?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Shepherd's Voice
This coming Sunday is Good Shepherd Sunday: the speech Jesus gives about the thief trying to steal his sheep, but his sheep know his voice. During this week's sermon brainwave, Rolf Jacobson told a story about this farmer who raised sheep. He was at the fair and talking with this guy about his sheep. When he got home, he discovered strange tire tracks and went in and discovered his sheep were gone. A few weeks later he went to the fair in the next county and discovered his sheep, which had been re-tagged. But as he approached the pen, the sheep began to bleat - they recognized their true shepherd.
This story hit home for me today when thinking about the thieves that come in and steal us from God. For those who don't know, I lost my cousin this last Friday to alcoholism. The "thief" that stole my cousin came in the form of a Jack Daniel's bottle - offering an escape from pain, an escape from loneliness, and the potential for "happiness" at the bottom of a bottle. This is a story that is told far too often in this world. I don't make excuses for my cousin - he made his choices, he sought these things out long ago and opted to go down this path. Once alcoholism got its talons in him, leaving that lifestyle behind was virtually impossible. That is how addictions work - you allow them to enter into your life, and they take over it in ways you never imagined. These addictions lead to other things - lying, denial, violence, etc. Whether he really wanted help or not for his problem, I'll never know. And there are waaaay too many family systems at play for me to go into all the things that played a part in this destructive path. And they're all a moot point at this juncture.
My cousin was so entrenched in the thief's den that it took his life. But two days before we pulled him off life support, we called in a chaplain who said a prayer around his bed. Now my cousin had been placed in a drug-induced coma in order to manage the pain and was unable to breathe on his own. Prior to the prayer, his heart had been racing around 98 bpm, he was twitching and struggling... as the chaplain proclaimed the love of Christ and the comfort of our Heavenly Father, he visibly relaxed and his heart rate dropped down to 74 bpm. He remained much calmer and more peaceful for the next few days until we pulled him off the ventilator and he died.
What I take away from this, however, is the power of the Shepherd's voice. There is no doubt in my mind that the Shepherd's voice broke through all of the sedation and made it's way to my cousin. He was not a particularly religious individual, never went to church, wasn't big on prayer, etc. etc. - but I know he occasionally talked about how he felt God had become too removed from our everyday lives. Of course, when he spoke of these things, they didn't always ring true for those of us who knew him best, for those of us who had seen his ugly side. For those of us who were not as in denial over my cousin's addiction. They seemed like very empty words coming from someone who acted and behaved in ways that were anything but representative of Jesus Christ.
However - perhaps, looking back, there was an important truth my cousin was speaking whether he recognized it or not. Christ has been removed from the daily lives of many. Christ had been removed from his life for a very long time.
But at the end - he still knew the Shepherd's voice.
This story hit home for me today when thinking about the thieves that come in and steal us from God. For those who don't know, I lost my cousin this last Friday to alcoholism. The "thief" that stole my cousin came in the form of a Jack Daniel's bottle - offering an escape from pain, an escape from loneliness, and the potential for "happiness" at the bottom of a bottle. This is a story that is told far too often in this world. I don't make excuses for my cousin - he made his choices, he sought these things out long ago and opted to go down this path. Once alcoholism got its talons in him, leaving that lifestyle behind was virtually impossible. That is how addictions work - you allow them to enter into your life, and they take over it in ways you never imagined. These addictions lead to other things - lying, denial, violence, etc. Whether he really wanted help or not for his problem, I'll never know. And there are waaaay too many family systems at play for me to go into all the things that played a part in this destructive path. And they're all a moot point at this juncture.
My cousin was so entrenched in the thief's den that it took his life. But two days before we pulled him off life support, we called in a chaplain who said a prayer around his bed. Now my cousin had been placed in a drug-induced coma in order to manage the pain and was unable to breathe on his own. Prior to the prayer, his heart had been racing around 98 bpm, he was twitching and struggling... as the chaplain proclaimed the love of Christ and the comfort of our Heavenly Father, he visibly relaxed and his heart rate dropped down to 74 bpm. He remained much calmer and more peaceful for the next few days until we pulled him off the ventilator and he died.
What I take away from this, however, is the power of the Shepherd's voice. There is no doubt in my mind that the Shepherd's voice broke through all of the sedation and made it's way to my cousin. He was not a particularly religious individual, never went to church, wasn't big on prayer, etc. etc. - but I know he occasionally talked about how he felt God had become too removed from our everyday lives. Of course, when he spoke of these things, they didn't always ring true for those of us who knew him best, for those of us who had seen his ugly side. For those of us who were not as in denial over my cousin's addiction. They seemed like very empty words coming from someone who acted and behaved in ways that were anything but representative of Jesus Christ.
However - perhaps, looking back, there was an important truth my cousin was speaking whether he recognized it or not. Christ has been removed from the daily lives of many. Christ had been removed from his life for a very long time.
But at the end - he still knew the Shepherd's voice.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Snake on a Stick vs. Christ on the Cross
I know I haven't written on this for a while, but just haven't felt the muse - until I started reading over the texts for this week. Granted, I did write a pretty in-depth paper on John 3 for my Gospel of John class several years ago, but I decided to spend some time this week really looking at the "serpent vs. cross" imagery that gets played out here.
The bronze serpent story in Numbers 23 I've always found to be a fascinating little story - albeit a somewhat bizarre story. Why Jesus would pick up this particular event to illustrate the meaning of being "born again/from above" is particularly intriguing. Of course the commentaries on workingpreacher.org and the like will point us to the fact that in both cases, the snake on a stick and Jesus being lifted up on a cross make us realize that in order to be healed, we have to look to these instruments of death.
(Just a quick background for those who might be unfamiliar with the story - the Numbers text is about the Israelites grumbling against God yet again and then being bitten by snakes. God tells Moses to hold up a bronze serpent and if they turn and look at it, they'll he healed of their snake bites. In John 3, Jesus then states that likewise, the Son of Man must be raised up and in order to be healed, people must turn to him in faith. The more obvious and predominant point within this is that in both cases, we must face these instruments of death, these instruments of our own demise - our own sin, brokenness, etc. in order to be healed. And of course, Jesus offers something greater than Moses - he offers eternal healing).
Much more could be said about all of that. But for the purposes of this posting, I really want to concentrate on this whole bronze serpent imagery. It got my mind whirling about all the things I know about serpents and serpent imagery. As many of you know, my father is a physician. So I grew up seeing images of serpents on sticks all the time since the "Staff of Asclepius" is the universal symbol for most medical associations that deal with patient care (ie: the American Acadmey of Family Physicians). When my dad became a Family Physician, he was given a pin that he wore on the lapel of his jackets and lab coats of a snake wrapped around a stick. This was a familiar image to me that I didn't think too much about for a very long period of time.
However, as someone who loves history, mythology, ancient cultures and of course, theology, I find this all so intriguing because of the juxtaposition of the "serpent" imagery in the ancient near-east as opposed to how the Bible deals with this same serpent image. Just in case anyone is unaware of this point, the serpent in the ancient near east was a symbol of wisdom - dating back to ancient Mesopotamia where evidence of serpent worship abounded. In fact, the single serpent staff appears on a Sumerian vase from about 2000 B.C. representing the healing god Ningishita. The Greeks picked this up later and transformed it into the healing god Asclepius. Healing and wisdom are intrinsically tied together in the image of the serpent even today.
Yet, the serpent--this enigmatic symbol for worldly wisdom--is also what appears in the Garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve. The temptation is to embrace the wisdom the serpent has to offer, to potentially know all the things that God knows. Now, this is not to say that wisdom in and of itself is a bad thing - Proverbs points us to the fact that wisdom, when used in its proper form, is indeed something to strive for.
But in the case of the Garden of Eden, the Biblical message takes on a very radical point here: the worldly wisdom that is so worshiped by both ancient civilizations and our own is also the very thing that brings about our downfall and death. The knowledge itself is not the problem. The wisdom itself is not the problem. The problem is - we worship it. Many would say we would never worship a snake - how silly is that? But we DO worship knowledge. We worship worldly wisdom. We hunger for it - we seek it out and at times, we trust it far more than we are willing to trust God (I count myself among probably the worst of these!)
Like the Israelites, we've been "bitten" by our trust in worldly wisdom, by our trust in the ways in which we seek out "worldly" healing. Moses indeed held up the bronze serpent and the people were healed of the venom - but something that is important to note about this particular store... it was not a permanent fix. It put a band-aid on the problem, but didn't fix it. Death would still eventually come for the Israelites. Their immediate ailment was removed - but their state of being had not changed. They would return to their grumbling and would return to their sinful way of living.
Jesus now gives us a compare and contrast. The serpent vs. the cross. Both are instruments of death in their own way. The serpent brings death because it represents everything worldly that we embrace. Yes, that wisdom can help us in this world - we've used its wisdom to prolong life, cure diseases, etc. These in and of themselves are not "bad" things. But like the bronze serpent - it was not a complete healing. It still can't cure that one problem we all face. I think back to what the serpent said to Adam and Eve - "you will not die." A truth mixed with a lie. Death might not have been immediate - it may have been put off... but ultimately, death would eventually be the end result of trusting the serpent rather than God.
Our medical profession today goes to great lengths to not make a liar out of the serpent's words. They do everything they can to try and circumvent the process of death and spend their lives dedicated to trying to find ways to extend life. Again, I am not suggesting in and of itself this is a bad thing - but we're talking here about trust issues. What do we put our trust in? Do we trust our medical professionals... do we trust worldly wisdom... or do we trust God?
Jesus on the other hand holds something else up. He holds up the cross. Now, the cross is also an instrument of death. It was where the worst criminals were sent to die. Yet, it is this very foolish image that God now says we must look to for healing - but not necessarily worldly healing. Jesus says those who look upon the Son of Man lifted up and embrace him in faith will be given the gift of "eternal life." While the snake/worldly wisdom might provide a type of healing, it is only temporary. It is not eternal. The foolish image of the cross, however, provides something more complete. It is how relationship with God is restored. It is how we are spiritually healed and made whole again.
The world seems to be faced with two choices - follow the snake on a stick and the healing it offers, or God on a cross and the healing He offers. It has become clearer to me now why Jesus pulled upon this story to try and explain the concept of being "born again/from above."
Jesus states earlier in the text that we all must be born of both water and spirit when he's telling Nicodemus how one enters the Kingdom of God. It would thus seem that the bronze serpent parallels the "water" element Jesus is discussing - the physical world we live in. (For all humans are "born of water" - just ask any mother who's given birth the reality of this. As does Nicodemus since his immediate question is how one returns to the womb to be "reborn.") However - to be born of "spirit" as well is the point Jesus wants to drive home, and is the point that Nicodemus doesn't get for two reasons.
First, Nicodemus doesn't get it because he's Jewish, and his understanding of "salvation" revolves around the physical nationalistic type of salvation that one was expecting the Messiah to usher in. For Nicodemus, a physical salvation of Israel was not tied to issues of the hereafter. The second reason is popular Greek Platonic thought separated the "physical" from the "spiritual" to the point that the physical/material world was seen as "bad" and the "spiritual" was what one would strive for. Either way, for Nicodemus, "both" water and spirit together was a somewhat baffling concept (and still is for many who are incapable of comprehending the incarnation, of God becoming flesh).
Jesus is introducing the idea that BOTH are necessary, both are good, and both are a reality - we need the physical AND the spiritual. So he continues his juxtoposition of physical and spiritual by pointing out the two types of healing: the physical healing one receives from worldly things, represented by the serpent and his wisdom. The second type of healing that must be melded with the first is the cross - in all its utter foolishness is the true Wisdom of God. So while physicians, etc. are indeed important and are necessary in our physical, material world, we must incorporate the whole package - the physical with the spiritual. Because to rely and trust solely on the physical leads to incomplete healing. It is insufficient. The healing Moses could provide through the bronze serpent falls woefully short of the healing that God provides through Christ on the cross. So while we do not shun the old snake on a stick, our trust does not lie there. It lies in Christ on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1Pet. 2:24)" The cross has been transformed so that it not only represents death to us, but also death to that which brought death, nullifying its effects - because we always remember that the cross was the curse, for "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:10) But the resurrection is the promise that overcomes the curse.
The bronze serpent story in Numbers 23 I've always found to be a fascinating little story - albeit a somewhat bizarre story. Why Jesus would pick up this particular event to illustrate the meaning of being "born again/from above" is particularly intriguing. Of course the commentaries on workingpreacher.org and the like will point us to the fact that in both cases, the snake on a stick and Jesus being lifted up on a cross make us realize that in order to be healed, we have to look to these instruments of death.
(Just a quick background for those who might be unfamiliar with the story - the Numbers text is about the Israelites grumbling against God yet again and then being bitten by snakes. God tells Moses to hold up a bronze serpent and if they turn and look at it, they'll he healed of their snake bites. In John 3, Jesus then states that likewise, the Son of Man must be raised up and in order to be healed, people must turn to him in faith. The more obvious and predominant point within this is that in both cases, we must face these instruments of death, these instruments of our own demise - our own sin, brokenness, etc. in order to be healed. And of course, Jesus offers something greater than Moses - he offers eternal healing).
Much more could be said about all of that. But for the purposes of this posting, I really want to concentrate on this whole bronze serpent imagery. It got my mind whirling about all the things I know about serpents and serpent imagery. As many of you know, my father is a physician. So I grew up seeing images of serpents on sticks all the time since the "Staff of Asclepius" is the universal symbol for most medical associations that deal with patient care (ie: the American Acadmey of Family Physicians). When my dad became a Family Physician, he was given a pin that he wore on the lapel of his jackets and lab coats of a snake wrapped around a stick. This was a familiar image to me that I didn't think too much about for a very long period of time.
However, as someone who loves history, mythology, ancient cultures and of course, theology, I find this all so intriguing because of the juxtaposition of the "serpent" imagery in the ancient near-east as opposed to how the Bible deals with this same serpent image. Just in case anyone is unaware of this point, the serpent in the ancient near east was a symbol of wisdom - dating back to ancient Mesopotamia where evidence of serpent worship abounded. In fact, the single serpent staff appears on a Sumerian vase from about 2000 B.C. representing the healing god Ningishita. The Greeks picked this up later and transformed it into the healing god Asclepius. Healing and wisdom are intrinsically tied together in the image of the serpent even today.
Yet, the serpent--this enigmatic symbol for worldly wisdom--is also what appears in the Garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve. The temptation is to embrace the wisdom the serpent has to offer, to potentially know all the things that God knows. Now, this is not to say that wisdom in and of itself is a bad thing - Proverbs points us to the fact that wisdom, when used in its proper form, is indeed something to strive for.
But in the case of the Garden of Eden, the Biblical message takes on a very radical point here: the worldly wisdom that is so worshiped by both ancient civilizations and our own is also the very thing that brings about our downfall and death. The knowledge itself is not the problem. The wisdom itself is not the problem. The problem is - we worship it. Many would say we would never worship a snake - how silly is that? But we DO worship knowledge. We worship worldly wisdom. We hunger for it - we seek it out and at times, we trust it far more than we are willing to trust God (I count myself among probably the worst of these!)
Like the Israelites, we've been "bitten" by our trust in worldly wisdom, by our trust in the ways in which we seek out "worldly" healing. Moses indeed held up the bronze serpent and the people were healed of the venom - but something that is important to note about this particular store... it was not a permanent fix. It put a band-aid on the problem, but didn't fix it. Death would still eventually come for the Israelites. Their immediate ailment was removed - but their state of being had not changed. They would return to their grumbling and would return to their sinful way of living.
Jesus now gives us a compare and contrast. The serpent vs. the cross. Both are instruments of death in their own way. The serpent brings death because it represents everything worldly that we embrace. Yes, that wisdom can help us in this world - we've used its wisdom to prolong life, cure diseases, etc. These in and of themselves are not "bad" things. But like the bronze serpent - it was not a complete healing. It still can't cure that one problem we all face. I think back to what the serpent said to Adam and Eve - "you will not die." A truth mixed with a lie. Death might not have been immediate - it may have been put off... but ultimately, death would eventually be the end result of trusting the serpent rather than God.
Our medical profession today goes to great lengths to not make a liar out of the serpent's words. They do everything they can to try and circumvent the process of death and spend their lives dedicated to trying to find ways to extend life. Again, I am not suggesting in and of itself this is a bad thing - but we're talking here about trust issues. What do we put our trust in? Do we trust our medical professionals... do we trust worldly wisdom... or do we trust God?
Jesus on the other hand holds something else up. He holds up the cross. Now, the cross is also an instrument of death. It was where the worst criminals were sent to die. Yet, it is this very foolish image that God now says we must look to for healing - but not necessarily worldly healing. Jesus says those who look upon the Son of Man lifted up and embrace him in faith will be given the gift of "eternal life." While the snake/worldly wisdom might provide a type of healing, it is only temporary. It is not eternal. The foolish image of the cross, however, provides something more complete. It is how relationship with God is restored. It is how we are spiritually healed and made whole again.
The world seems to be faced with two choices - follow the snake on a stick and the healing it offers, or God on a cross and the healing He offers. It has become clearer to me now why Jesus pulled upon this story to try and explain the concept of being "born again/from above."
Jesus states earlier in the text that we all must be born of both water and spirit when he's telling Nicodemus how one enters the Kingdom of God. It would thus seem that the bronze serpent parallels the "water" element Jesus is discussing - the physical world we live in. (For all humans are "born of water" - just ask any mother who's given birth the reality of this. As does Nicodemus since his immediate question is how one returns to the womb to be "reborn.") However - to be born of "spirit" as well is the point Jesus wants to drive home, and is the point that Nicodemus doesn't get for two reasons.
First, Nicodemus doesn't get it because he's Jewish, and his understanding of "salvation" revolves around the physical nationalistic type of salvation that one was expecting the Messiah to usher in. For Nicodemus, a physical salvation of Israel was not tied to issues of the hereafter. The second reason is popular Greek Platonic thought separated the "physical" from the "spiritual" to the point that the physical/material world was seen as "bad" and the "spiritual" was what one would strive for. Either way, for Nicodemus, "both" water and spirit together was a somewhat baffling concept (and still is for many who are incapable of comprehending the incarnation, of God becoming flesh).
Jesus is introducing the idea that BOTH are necessary, both are good, and both are a reality - we need the physical AND the spiritual. So he continues his juxtoposition of physical and spiritual by pointing out the two types of healing: the physical healing one receives from worldly things, represented by the serpent and his wisdom. The second type of healing that must be melded with the first is the cross - in all its utter foolishness is the true Wisdom of God. So while physicians, etc. are indeed important and are necessary in our physical, material world, we must incorporate the whole package - the physical with the spiritual. Because to rely and trust solely on the physical leads to incomplete healing. It is insufficient. The healing Moses could provide through the bronze serpent falls woefully short of the healing that God provides through Christ on the cross. So while we do not shun the old snake on a stick, our trust does not lie there. It lies in Christ on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1Pet. 2:24)" The cross has been transformed so that it not only represents death to us, but also death to that which brought death, nullifying its effects - because we always remember that the cross was the curse, for "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:10) But the resurrection is the promise that overcomes the curse.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Conversations with an Atheist: Are Christians Causing Their Children to Become Atheists?
Don't ask me how it is I always find myself in these situations where I'm having discussions with atheists and whatnot. But, I do. (I think in part it must be through facebook and the fact that I'm back in touch with people from my "past life" who were frequently not of the religious ilk)
At any rate, I'm having a discussion with this atheist and just asking some basic questions about why he's an atheist, and the response was not a huge surprise, but it made me start thinking that once again, the Christian church has failed to convey the proper message when it comes to God. He started out with what I now see as the "standard" atheist rhetoric. You've probably heard it as well... God is just a human idea, the bible is just a bunch of man-made stories, and while Jesus had some nice ideas about being kind to one another, that was about all he was good for.
Naturally, he had not come up with this stuff all on his own. It took a combination of the Christian church and the ideas of Richard Dawkins to turn him off. Growing up, he had listened to the stories of the bible, about creation, the tower of Babel, etc, an as he grew older and was faced with more "logical" ideas like evolution, he had to begin disregarding the Bible as a whole. Then he read one of Mr. Dawkins' books called "The Selfish Gene" that talked about the "meme," which essentially is this idea that religious ideas are simply a genetic "mimicry" that we humans are pressured into culturally. Apparently, belief in God is merely a disease that just gets transmitted from one generation to the next. This he embraced and became an atheist.
Now we can demonize Mr. Dawkins all we want for spewing such ridiculousness out there, but really, it's not Mr. Dawkins' fault. It's our own. Why did this young man go searching for an "alternative" to the bible in the first place? Because of how it was presented. In his mind, given what he was learning in school, the bible seemed completely whacked and didn't deal with the reality of the scientific world.
Now this is not an argument for or against the idea of evolution - but I am thinking we need to find new ways to present these biblical stories to our children so that they aren't so "outlandish" in many ways. For instance - the six day creation account. Rather than focusing so heavily on the fact that it "only took God six days" to create the heavens and the earth, perhaps focusing on the fact that God created an orderly world should be the emphasis. (Besides... as I recently noticed myself, the whole "day" issue seems to not be what the authors were after when they mention the evening first, then the morning, "the first day." Should be reversed, morning, THEN evening, not the other way around, if we want to really take the whole six day thing literally.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in watering the stories down, but maybe we need to start presenting them in ways that are a little more "realistic" in the face of what they're going to learn in the public school systems. I know I for one, if I ever were to have children, really wouldn't want my child growing up thinking Samson was a great biblical "hero," given he was anything but! As I've grown older and studied the bible more, I've realized the vast majority of the stories I heard when I was a child from the bible rarely captured the over-arching idea/theme of what was being conveyed in the story. Now granted, sometimes, the idea is a little too "adult" for our children to grasp, but maybe the story of David, rather than making him out to be this great and wonderful king, we should dirty him up a little...make him a little more "human" like he is in the bible and make the message be about how despite how much David screwed up, God loved him anyway.
This may not solve every problem we have or prevent every Christian youth who turns their back on faith from doing so, but I'm thinking something needs to be done in this area. I'm running across far too many people who have grown up Christian and become atheists because the bible simply isn't real enough to them. So maybe the solution is retelling these stories in ways that better fit our context and culture.
Because if you actually read Mr. Dawkins' ideas, they aren't any more logical or even scientifically "provable" in any way. They're simply a modern "alternative" for people who just don't think the bible is relevant. Given the choice of the two, they turn to Mr. Dawkins.
Thoughts/ideas?
At any rate, I'm having a discussion with this atheist and just asking some basic questions about why he's an atheist, and the response was not a huge surprise, but it made me start thinking that once again, the Christian church has failed to convey the proper message when it comes to God. He started out with what I now see as the "standard" atheist rhetoric. You've probably heard it as well... God is just a human idea, the bible is just a bunch of man-made stories, and while Jesus had some nice ideas about being kind to one another, that was about all he was good for.
Naturally, he had not come up with this stuff all on his own. It took a combination of the Christian church and the ideas of Richard Dawkins to turn him off. Growing up, he had listened to the stories of the bible, about creation, the tower of Babel, etc, an as he grew older and was faced with more "logical" ideas like evolution, he had to begin disregarding the Bible as a whole. Then he read one of Mr. Dawkins' books called "The Selfish Gene" that talked about the "meme," which essentially is this idea that religious ideas are simply a genetic "mimicry" that we humans are pressured into culturally. Apparently, belief in God is merely a disease that just gets transmitted from one generation to the next. This he embraced and became an atheist.
Now we can demonize Mr. Dawkins all we want for spewing such ridiculousness out there, but really, it's not Mr. Dawkins' fault. It's our own. Why did this young man go searching for an "alternative" to the bible in the first place? Because of how it was presented. In his mind, given what he was learning in school, the bible seemed completely whacked and didn't deal with the reality of the scientific world.
Now this is not an argument for or against the idea of evolution - but I am thinking we need to find new ways to present these biblical stories to our children so that they aren't so "outlandish" in many ways. For instance - the six day creation account. Rather than focusing so heavily on the fact that it "only took God six days" to create the heavens and the earth, perhaps focusing on the fact that God created an orderly world should be the emphasis. (Besides... as I recently noticed myself, the whole "day" issue seems to not be what the authors were after when they mention the evening first, then the morning, "the first day." Should be reversed, morning, THEN evening, not the other way around, if we want to really take the whole six day thing literally.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in watering the stories down, but maybe we need to start presenting them in ways that are a little more "realistic" in the face of what they're going to learn in the public school systems. I know I for one, if I ever were to have children, really wouldn't want my child growing up thinking Samson was a great biblical "hero," given he was anything but! As I've grown older and studied the bible more, I've realized the vast majority of the stories I heard when I was a child from the bible rarely captured the over-arching idea/theme of what was being conveyed in the story. Now granted, sometimes, the idea is a little too "adult" for our children to grasp, but maybe the story of David, rather than making him out to be this great and wonderful king, we should dirty him up a little...make him a little more "human" like he is in the bible and make the message be about how despite how much David screwed up, God loved him anyway.
This may not solve every problem we have or prevent every Christian youth who turns their back on faith from doing so, but I'm thinking something needs to be done in this area. I'm running across far too many people who have grown up Christian and become atheists because the bible simply isn't real enough to them. So maybe the solution is retelling these stories in ways that better fit our context and culture.
Because if you actually read Mr. Dawkins' ideas, they aren't any more logical or even scientifically "provable" in any way. They're simply a modern "alternative" for people who just don't think the bible is relevant. Given the choice of the two, they turn to Mr. Dawkins.
Thoughts/ideas?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Has Feminism in the Lutheran Church Gone Too Far?
A friend of mine recently directed me to an article regarding an ELCA church in San Francisco, Ebenezer Lutheran, which had the following sign up: "Goddess Rosary, Wednesday 7 pm." (You can read the entire article here) While I have my own reservations about certain "feminist" language that is being imposed on biblical translation, this transcends a mere question of whether God has feminine qualities. When a "Goddess Pilgrimage to Crete" (sponsored by a pagan group that is dedicated to the worship of "goddesses" - plural, not singular, and includes the Greek goddesses like Aphrodite) is being touted and supported by the ELCA, I start to get more than just a little nervous. When I read what this "Goddess Pilgrimage" entails - I shudder and have to wonder myself if the ELCA has crossed a threshold that may bring about the downfall of our most basic beliefs within the Lutheran Church. At what point have we ceased to be Christian, and become the very thing Paul and the other early Christians were fighting against? Not just fighting against, but died for because they refused to partake in these practices.
Perhaps I'm being an alarmist. Wouldn't be the first time. But if the trend within the Lutheran Church is to begin embracing worship among Minoan pagan altars, of tapping into the "power of the Goddess" within mountains and caves (not that worship in caves and mountains is wrong in and of itself, but these places are also the traditional sites of pagan/nature worship practices - because they could "feel" the presence of the god or goddess who would dwell in the caves and mountains - their "power" was thought to be strongest in these places because they were a part of the rocks, trees, etc.), I won't be able to run away from this denomination fast enough!
While I'm all for women being validated as women, and that "patriarchal oppression" indeed needs to be fought against, and that we should highlight the counter-cultural treatment of women by Jesus, Paul, etc, and yes, I can even see the usage of certain "mother" imagery in imaging God... it's moves like these that invite criticism from those who think the ELCA has gone woefully astray, and I would be among those who would agree with that sentiment. If this ELCA congregation needs to close its doors in San Francisco because they are unable to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then so be it. We shake the dust from our sandals and move on, we don't adopt pagan practices in an attempt to entice people into our pews!! I have to ask - what is the Sierra Pacific Synod thinking??? What is the National Synod thinking allowing this to occur under the auspices of Lutheran practice and theology? While the idea of "herchurch" is a lot outside my comfort zone to begin with, after reviewing their site, I can at least accept it as an attempt (an ATTEMPT, mind you, not that they're actually achieving it) to still be within the bounds of Christianity - but when they ally themselves with paganist groups such as the Ariadne Institute which states they explore "the ancient and contemporary myths and rituals of the Goddesses," (PLURAL!) I think the line has definitely been crossed. The "herchurch" site begs that we read all of what they believe, and based on their professions of faith, I inherently have nothing against "herchurch." It's the company "herchurch" is keeping that causes me to cringe and the warning flags to start flying!
While I'm all for women being validated as women, and that "patriarchal oppression" indeed needs to be fought against, and that we should highlight the counter-cultural treatment of women by Jesus, Paul, etc, and yes, I can even see the usage of certain "mother" imagery in imaging God... it's moves like these that invite criticism from those who think the ELCA has gone woefully astray, and I would be among those who would agree with that sentiment. If this ELCA congregation needs to close its doors in San Francisco because they are unable to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then so be it. We shake the dust from our sandals and move on, we don't adopt pagan practices in an attempt to entice people into our pews!! I have to ask - what is the Sierra Pacific Synod thinking??? What is the National Synod thinking allowing this to occur under the auspices of Lutheran practice and theology? While the idea of "herchurch" is a lot outside my comfort zone to begin with, after reviewing their site, I can at least accept it as an attempt (an ATTEMPT, mind you, not that they're actually achieving it) to still be within the bounds of Christianity - but when they ally themselves with paganist groups such as the Ariadne Institute which states they explore "the ancient and contemporary myths and rituals of the Goddesses," (PLURAL!) I think the line has definitely been crossed. The "herchurch" site begs that we read all of what they believe, and based on their professions of faith, I inherently have nothing against "herchurch." It's the company "herchurch" is keeping that causes me to cringe and the warning flags to start flying!
As a woman, I understand the plight of women fighting for the right to be leaders in the church, and I even to a degree understand certain portions of "feminist theology." I myself have received criticism for deigning to become a woman pastor, accused of "ignoring scripture" because I put the 1 Timothy text into its proper context and do not apply it as a church-wide mandate. But in my humble opinion - it's actions such as these at Ebenezer Lutheran that caused Paul to clamp down so harshly on women in the first place and is what led to his condemnation of their taking leadership roles in 1 Timothy. Something similar is going on in San Francisco - the church is acquiescing to it's surrounding culture, giving into the pagan practices that predominate the area, and just like in Ephesus - it's women that are leading the headlong plunge into apostasy.
If Christian women don't want to feel the back-lash of this, of people pointing to the Lutheran church and saying "see, this is why women should never be leaders - look at what it leads to!" we need to be loud about our disapproval of such practices. And for those who want to further the argument and cause of ordaining practicing homosexuals in the Lutheran church - they had better scream long and loud as well! Why? Because one of their arguments is that the reason God called homosexuality an abomination was because it was being done as part of the Canaanite pagan cults. When (and yes, I'm probably stereotyping given the location of the church in question) lesbians get together and want to start "goddess worship" among the pagan ruins of Crete, it's not a huge leap for the next few steps into full-blown pagan practices to start taking hold once again. Female sexuality has long been a practice of "goddess worship" throughout the world. In the age of "Christendom" the practices were essentially squashed to only a few adherants, but with the rising tide of interest in the "old" religions and practices of our ancestors, neo-paganism is on the rise - and is finding ways to utilize Christianity so that it doesn't seem like it's "paganism" on the surface. Yet, that's exactly what it is. At the very least, it's promoting pantheism. At the very worst - polytheism.
Now let's envision for a moment... women engaging in "Goddess worship" among the pagan altars of Crete... feeling her power in holy mountains, sensing her mysteries in the darkness of caves (which is where the chosen priestess and male "stag" would traditionally copulate during the spring equinox festival of Beltane in the hopes of impregnating the priestess, who would then raise the child among the female priestessess of the cult. Both the man and the woman would wear a mask so the identity of each would be hidden), and pour out libations of milk and honey on Minoan altars....
Is anyone else seeing warning flags??
Now let's envision for a moment... women engaging in "Goddess worship" among the pagan altars of Crete... feeling her power in holy mountains, sensing her mysteries in the darkness of caves (which is where the chosen priestess and male "stag" would traditionally copulate during the spring equinox festival of Beltane in the hopes of impregnating the priestess, who would then raise the child among the female priestessess of the cult. Both the man and the woman would wear a mask so the identity of each would be hidden), and pour out libations of milk and honey on Minoan altars....
Is anyone else seeing warning flags??
The 12 Days of Christmas
OK, this is a totally random posting... but I was sitting here discussing the lyrics of the 12 days of Christmas with my mom (yeah, that's what it's degenerated to, I'm afraid) and how I always get the last 3 totally mixed up, so I looked up the lyrics online and discovered that the symbols of the 12 days apparently actually stand for something! (I know - most of you probably know that and are all shocked and a little disappointed that dear Rivkah had never given the song a lot of thought before now!) :-p I mean, I knew what the 12 days of Christmas were - the 12 days between Christmas and Epiphany that are supposed to be a feasting celebration, but in case there are any others out there who have never thought about what "12 Lords a Leaping" meant before either... I dug around and found some interesting things - some of which is a bit disturbing, I'll admit! :-) (Most have to do with fertility issues and are somewhat sexual in nature... DOH!) :-)
1st Day - "A partridge in a pear tree"
Well, fruit trees are representative of fertility - and of course there's a whole history of a CERTAIN fruit tree from the Garden of Eden! Apparently, part of the folklore is that a young woman should be able to walk backwards around the pear tree, then gaze through its branches and see her future husband. (Hmmmm... think it's too late for me to go find a pear tree???) And a partridge is known for being a very "lusty" suitor. But the "my true love," religiously, is supposed to represent God.
2nd Day - "Two Turtledoves"
Doves for centuries have symbolized both love and fertility. Astarte, the Phoenician goddess of love, is said to have been hatched on the banks of the Euphrates River from an egg that was warmed by two doves. Venus, the Roman goddess of love and beauty, was born of water, where doves are often depicted drinking. This is why they are often seen as fountain art. It's also why Christianity adopted the dove as the symbol for the Holy Spirit. But doves are also said to mate for life, so they are symbolic of marital devotion, faithfulness, and ever-lasting love. Many associate the "two" with the Old Testament and New Testament as well - the two "covenants" or "testaments" of God that bind us together and tell the full story of God and his relationship with humanity.
3rd Day - "Three French Hens"
One Christian tradition is that it is believed a rooster crowed when Jesus was born heralding the coming of the light into the world and is seen as a symbol of resurrection. (This is why some Christian tombs have roosters on them!) But during the 18th century, large exotic fowl from the orient were brought to England and bred with the local common chicken and created a new breed. And hens also symbolize motherly devotion. They're also thought to represent the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity.
4th Day - "Four Calling Birds" (Actually it's COLLY Birds!!!)
A "Colly" bird is a European black bird. It's essentially a crow (which does call!) :-) Blackbirds were a delicacy in medieval times. Religiously, the "four" is associated with the four gospels that "call out" the good news of Jesus.
5th Day - "Five Golden Rings"
Unfortunately, it's not jewelry, but represents the five rings of gold around a pheasant's neck. This goes way back to the Greek heroic tale of Jason and the Argonauts and the Golden Fleece. The pheasant is supposedly a sub-species of the "bird of Phasis" which were used to create the Golden Fleece. Pheasant soon became viewed as a delicacy reserved primarily for the rich and royal (tell that tall the hunters around here!) and was seen as the "high point" of the feast. These "five golden rings" are also associated with the Torah/Pentateuch, the first five books of the bible.
6th Day - "Six Geese a-Laying"
Geese are involved in many ancient folklore tales. Because of its migrationg patterns, it's long been associated with the solar year and (you guessed it) fertility. The Roman Goddess Juno revered the goose as sacred because in 387 BC the geese in her temple honked and alerted the Romans the invading barbarians were close. They have since been revered for their protective qualities. Ancient Egyptians also believed that a mummy's sould would rise with the head of a goose. Six is then also representative of the six days of creation.
7th Day - "Seven Swans a Swimming"
Like the goose, swans were also highly revered animals in the ancient world. Egyptians continued to link them with immortality, but it was their dual ability to be both of the water and of the air that caused the ancients to believe they represented a connection between both the supernatural and natural worlds. British and Celtic myths frequently pictured loved ones who had died turning into swans with chains around their neck to represent their enchantment. Then on the festival of Samhain (Halloween) when the window between the two worlds would open, the swan would transform and the loved-one would cross over into the spiritual world. This "spiritual" theme is carried on in the Christian significance, representing the seven-fold spirit of God.
8th Day - "8 Maids a Milking"
When a maiden was asked to go "a milking" it was viewed as either a marriage proposal, or a very risque invitation for intimacy. (How does a young maiden know the difference??) ;-) But this also represents the 8 Beatitudes.
9th Day - "9 Drummers Drumming"
In England, there were town "waits" or watchman who would call out the hours of the night. Eventually, they became the town musicians and would be nicely rewarded at Christmastime. The beat of a drum is traditionally also associated with warfare along with trumpets that would hearld a coming battle - but later, trumpets also signalled the arrival of each course at a meal. A musician would usually know how to play both a trumpet and a small drum. This is also associated with the 9 fruits of the Holy Spirit.
10th Day - "10 Piper's Piping"
Being a shepherd was a pretty boring job, so most shepherds played pipes to keep themselves entertained. 10 also stands for the 10 commandments.
11th Day - "11 Ladies Dancing"
Dancing and music of course always goes hand in hand. Dancing and singing were ways in which stories were told - hence "Christmas caroles" are one way in which the story of Christmas is told. The number 11 is associated with the 11 faithful apostles. Like the crow who announces the good news in the 4 gospels, music and dancing are another way in which the gospel story is told. (Though I have to wonder how many strains of more misogynistic Christianity would view the 11 apostles as "ladies"!) :-)
12th Day - "12 Lords a Leaping"
Well, we had the 11 ladies dancing, now we have the Lords a Leaping - dances that were strictly for men alone, such as certain fertility dances and war dances. Some Roman dances involved men leaping as high into the air as they could in the hope of inducing rain to fall to help the corn grow as tall as they were leaping. In Britain, a similar dance was performed by men during the festival of the 12 days for entertainment purposes. 12 is associated with the 12 points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed.
Aren't you glad you now know this bit of Christmas trivia??
1st Day - "A partridge in a pear tree"
Well, fruit trees are representative of fertility - and of course there's a whole history of a CERTAIN fruit tree from the Garden of Eden! Apparently, part of the folklore is that a young woman should be able to walk backwards around the pear tree, then gaze through its branches and see her future husband. (Hmmmm... think it's too late for me to go find a pear tree???) And a partridge is known for being a very "lusty" suitor. But the "my true love," religiously, is supposed to represent God.
2nd Day - "Two Turtledoves"
Doves for centuries have symbolized both love and fertility. Astarte, the Phoenician goddess of love, is said to have been hatched on the banks of the Euphrates River from an egg that was warmed by two doves. Venus, the Roman goddess of love and beauty, was born of water, where doves are often depicted drinking. This is why they are often seen as fountain art. It's also why Christianity adopted the dove as the symbol for the Holy Spirit. But doves are also said to mate for life, so they are symbolic of marital devotion, faithfulness, and ever-lasting love. Many associate the "two" with the Old Testament and New Testament as well - the two "covenants" or "testaments" of God that bind us together and tell the full story of God and his relationship with humanity.
3rd Day - "Three French Hens"
One Christian tradition is that it is believed a rooster crowed when Jesus was born heralding the coming of the light into the world and is seen as a symbol of resurrection. (This is why some Christian tombs have roosters on them!) But during the 18th century, large exotic fowl from the orient were brought to England and bred with the local common chicken and created a new breed. And hens also symbolize motherly devotion. They're also thought to represent the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity.
4th Day - "Four Calling Birds" (Actually it's COLLY Birds!!!)
A "Colly" bird is a European black bird. It's essentially a crow (which does call!) :-) Blackbirds were a delicacy in medieval times. Religiously, the "four" is associated with the four gospels that "call out" the good news of Jesus.
5th Day - "Five Golden Rings"
Unfortunately, it's not jewelry, but represents the five rings of gold around a pheasant's neck. This goes way back to the Greek heroic tale of Jason and the Argonauts and the Golden Fleece. The pheasant is supposedly a sub-species of the "bird of Phasis" which were used to create the Golden Fleece. Pheasant soon became viewed as a delicacy reserved primarily for the rich and royal (tell that tall the hunters around here!) and was seen as the "high point" of the feast. These "five golden rings" are also associated with the Torah/Pentateuch, the first five books of the bible.
6th Day - "Six Geese a-Laying"
Geese are involved in many ancient folklore tales. Because of its migrationg patterns, it's long been associated with the solar year and (you guessed it) fertility. The Roman Goddess Juno revered the goose as sacred because in 387 BC the geese in her temple honked and alerted the Romans the invading barbarians were close. They have since been revered for their protective qualities. Ancient Egyptians also believed that a mummy's sould would rise with the head of a goose. Six is then also representative of the six days of creation.
7th Day - "Seven Swans a Swimming"
Like the goose, swans were also highly revered animals in the ancient world. Egyptians continued to link them with immortality, but it was their dual ability to be both of the water and of the air that caused the ancients to believe they represented a connection between both the supernatural and natural worlds. British and Celtic myths frequently pictured loved ones who had died turning into swans with chains around their neck to represent their enchantment. Then on the festival of Samhain (Halloween) when the window between the two worlds would open, the swan would transform and the loved-one would cross over into the spiritual world. This "spiritual" theme is carried on in the Christian significance, representing the seven-fold spirit of God.
8th Day - "8 Maids a Milking"
When a maiden was asked to go "a milking" it was viewed as either a marriage proposal, or a very risque invitation for intimacy. (How does a young maiden know the difference??) ;-) But this also represents the 8 Beatitudes.
9th Day - "9 Drummers Drumming"
In England, there were town "waits" or watchman who would call out the hours of the night. Eventually, they became the town musicians and would be nicely rewarded at Christmastime. The beat of a drum is traditionally also associated with warfare along with trumpets that would hearld a coming battle - but later, trumpets also signalled the arrival of each course at a meal. A musician would usually know how to play both a trumpet and a small drum. This is also associated with the 9 fruits of the Holy Spirit.
10th Day - "10 Piper's Piping"
Being a shepherd was a pretty boring job, so most shepherds played pipes to keep themselves entertained. 10 also stands for the 10 commandments.
11th Day - "11 Ladies Dancing"
Dancing and music of course always goes hand in hand. Dancing and singing were ways in which stories were told - hence "Christmas caroles" are one way in which the story of Christmas is told. The number 11 is associated with the 11 faithful apostles. Like the crow who announces the good news in the 4 gospels, music and dancing are another way in which the gospel story is told. (Though I have to wonder how many strains of more misogynistic Christianity would view the 11 apostles as "ladies"!) :-)
12th Day - "12 Lords a Leaping"
Well, we had the 11 ladies dancing, now we have the Lords a Leaping - dances that were strictly for men alone, such as certain fertility dances and war dances. Some Roman dances involved men leaping as high into the air as they could in the hope of inducing rain to fall to help the corn grow as tall as they were leaping. In Britain, a similar dance was performed by men during the festival of the 12 days for entertainment purposes. 12 is associated with the 12 points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed.
Aren't you glad you now know this bit of Christmas trivia??
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Voice of Christmas
I'm sure most of you read or heard about the man who was trampled to death at a Wal-Mart in New York. Eager holiday shoppers stampeded the store, tore doors off their hinges, and trampled the employee to death, while injuring more who were attempting to help the fallen man - all in the name of bargain shopping.
The story made me sick to my stomach. For more reason than one. First, just the general indifference people seem to have for one another these days - that their bargain shopping was more important than the life of this man is more than just appalling, it's reprehensible. Second, that it was done on a day that was supposed to mark the start of "the Christmas season." Well, I'll tell you - if that's what "the Christmas season" has become, I don't want to be part of it! I think "the reason for the season" would be more than just a little annoyed that the celebration of his coming into the world has been turned into not only a "commercial" enterprise, but has now turned into a cause for human beings to lose all sense of civility. Rather than lifting up the things that Jesus' life exemplified - caring for the downtrodden, weak, poor, sick, etc. - Christmas has seemingly become the very thing Jesus despised. A focus on materialism, on ourselves, on all the distractions and problems that we put upon ourselves this time of year.
Thus, I thought the text for this coming weekend, the voice of one calling in the wilderness (Mark 1:1-8), was an interesting text to follow on the heels of such depraved indifference in our world. Amid all the commercialism, gift buying, human idiocy, etc. - we are given an image of a man who lived in the desert, wearing a robe made of camel hair and eating locusts and honey. Few people would think to add John the baptist to their nativity set! Not exactly the yuletide picture we think of when it comes to Christmas, is it? No turkey and stuffing for John the baptist. No gift-laden tree, no serene nativity scene lit all aglow. Just a wild-man in the desert, awaiting "the one who is to come."
Advent is the time we await the coming of Christ into the world. John's waiting for the coming of Christ is similar to our waiting - but we seem to be preparing for it quite differently.
There are a lot of voices we hear at this time of year - buy this, buy that, find this, come here, go there... and amid all of that, we faintly hear the voice of one crying in the wilderness. It's a hard voice to hear, because we have a lot of distractions. Shopping, cooking, making travel plans, putting up decorations, fighting with family, etc. etc. We hear the voices that make us empty promises... of how our lives will be better if only we bought this... or tried that... and I confess, I know I'm just as guilty.
But I can't help but wonder if we aren't being called back into that wilderness - back to a place where the demands of the "season" are left behind. A place where a desert man cries out "Repent! Repent!" I am beginning to wonder if this isn't a message we need to heed - repent of what we've turned this season into. Repent of bargain shopping frenzies that have lost all sense of human decorum. Repent of stuffing ourselves full of Christmas treats (of course, there's more than one benefit of this for me!). Repent of family strife and arguments.
Because John speaks of "preparing the way" for the Lord. John prepared the way for Christ's coming not by exchanging gifts, or eating a large turkey or ham dinner (especially not the ham since he was Jewish, after all) - he prepared the way by baptizing, teaching, and proclaiming the good news of the one who would come to save the world. He prepared by retreating to the wilderness and removing himself from the cultural hub-bub of his day.
So I have to wonder... what can we learn from John the Baptist this Christmas season???
The story made me sick to my stomach. For more reason than one. First, just the general indifference people seem to have for one another these days - that their bargain shopping was more important than the life of this man is more than just appalling, it's reprehensible. Second, that it was done on a day that was supposed to mark the start of "the Christmas season." Well, I'll tell you - if that's what "the Christmas season" has become, I don't want to be part of it! I think "the reason for the season" would be more than just a little annoyed that the celebration of his coming into the world has been turned into not only a "commercial" enterprise, but has now turned into a cause for human beings to lose all sense of civility. Rather than lifting up the things that Jesus' life exemplified - caring for the downtrodden, weak, poor, sick, etc. - Christmas has seemingly become the very thing Jesus despised. A focus on materialism, on ourselves, on all the distractions and problems that we put upon ourselves this time of year.
Thus, I thought the text for this coming weekend, the voice of one calling in the wilderness (Mark 1:1-8), was an interesting text to follow on the heels of such depraved indifference in our world. Amid all the commercialism, gift buying, human idiocy, etc. - we are given an image of a man who lived in the desert, wearing a robe made of camel hair and eating locusts and honey. Few people would think to add John the baptist to their nativity set! Not exactly the yuletide picture we think of when it comes to Christmas, is it? No turkey and stuffing for John the baptist. No gift-laden tree, no serene nativity scene lit all aglow. Just a wild-man in the desert, awaiting "the one who is to come."
Advent is the time we await the coming of Christ into the world. John's waiting for the coming of Christ is similar to our waiting - but we seem to be preparing for it quite differently.
There are a lot of voices we hear at this time of year - buy this, buy that, find this, come here, go there... and amid all of that, we faintly hear the voice of one crying in the wilderness. It's a hard voice to hear, because we have a lot of distractions. Shopping, cooking, making travel plans, putting up decorations, fighting with family, etc. etc. We hear the voices that make us empty promises... of how our lives will be better if only we bought this... or tried that... and I confess, I know I'm just as guilty.
But I can't help but wonder if we aren't being called back into that wilderness - back to a place where the demands of the "season" are left behind. A place where a desert man cries out "Repent! Repent!" I am beginning to wonder if this isn't a message we need to heed - repent of what we've turned this season into. Repent of bargain shopping frenzies that have lost all sense of human decorum. Repent of stuffing ourselves full of Christmas treats (of course, there's more than one benefit of this for me!). Repent of family strife and arguments.
Because John speaks of "preparing the way" for the Lord. John prepared the way for Christ's coming not by exchanging gifts, or eating a large turkey or ham dinner (especially not the ham since he was Jewish, after all) - he prepared the way by baptizing, teaching, and proclaiming the good news of the one who would come to save the world. He prepared by retreating to the wilderness and removing himself from the cultural hub-bub of his day.
So I have to wonder... what can we learn from John the Baptist this Christmas season???
Friday, November 21, 2008
Christ the King
This Sunday is Christ the King Sunday. Admittedly, my initial thought was "Egads! How do I preach this?" (Matthew 25:31-46) Sheep and goats, eternal hell, all that fun stuff.
This text is always difficult for Lutheran pastor’s to preach. A former professor of mine, Karoline Lewis, illustrated it like this:
As a kid, you go up to your mother or father and say, “My neck hurts when I go like this” – and then demonstrate the pain-inducing move. Our parent’s response: “Well, then don’t do that.” A similar conversation occurs in the minds of preachers for this Sunday. "When I try to preach Christ the King Sunday, my neck hurts." The answer may be something like the following, "Well, then don't preach Christ the King Sunday."
One of the reasons we find this text so difficult to preach is because it is so heavily judgmental, and leans so heavily towards what we would call “works righteousness.” And let’s face it – we don’t like to talk about Jesus as a judge. We don’t exactly name our churches “Judging Jesus Lutheran,” do we? We want a Jesus who overlooks our being lazy, overlooks everything we do and turns a blind eye to sin, neglect, and inaction. After all, it’s faith—not works—that saves…right? This is what we preach as Lutherans.
However, “works righteousness” isn’t exactly what this parable is about. And it certainly isn’t about Jesus turning a blind eye to the injustices of the world. Quite the opposite. However, what this parable does do is it begs the question: What does it mean to have faith in Christ?
Is faith just an intellectual assent that something is true, or is faith something more than that? Does faith mean we sit idly by while God does his thing, or is faith actual participation in God’s Kingdom? Does faith mean that we ignore the things that were important to Christ, or that we pick up our crosses and take an interest in the things Christ was interested in? Do we live our lives in selfish, unproductive ways, or do we live our lives in faith—faith that Christ has not only redeemed us from our sins, but that God actually wants us to be a part of His Kingdom? That we aren’t just observers in the Kingdom of God, sitting on the sidelines not playing, but that we are active participants in helping bring God’s kingdom to earth? We pray this every week, do we not? Thy Kingdom come? And God has invited us and said, “YOU can help!” Do you have faith in God’s kingdom? Then let’s get to work on bringing it about.
If you go back and read Genesis, you’ll find something interesting—God created us not to be slaves, not as some accident like many of the other near eastern myths that were floating around at that time, but to partake in “kingly” duties. Not only does God hand creation over to us to care for, but it says God created us “in his image,” and part of God’s image is the image of a King. Because a king, while yes, is a ruler, is also a servant. Luther described a Christian as being “Lord of all, servant to none; servant to all and Lord of none.” This is what Christ is saying: those who have faith in my kingdom will also be a part of bringing my kingdom about. And in my kingdom – we clothe the poor, feed the hungry, and work for justice.
Because the problem is, when we stop partaking in being a part of building God’s kingdom, not only do we get lazy and selfish, but we start forgetting who exactly our King actually is. We forget who we belong to. It’s for this very reason that Christ the King Sunday was instituted.
Christ the King Sunday is actually a fairly new “holy day” on the church calendar. It was started by the Pope in 1925. Now you have to realize what was going on in Italy in 1925. Mussolini became Prime Minister of Italy in 1922 and by 1925 had declared himself the “supreme leader” of Italy. During Mussolini’s reign, he committed unspeakable atrocities against his fellow human. The King of Italy turned a blind eye, however, because he was fearful of Mussolini and his party. Of course, we also know Mussolini was followed by someone who became an even bigger “supreme leader” – Hitler. The atrocities that were carried out throughout both Italy and Nazi Germany were allowed to happen for one reason and one reason only – people forgot who the true “Supreme Leader” really was. They allowed swastikas to adorn their pulpits and sat silently as millions of Jews, misfits, and what society considered “undesirables” were carried off and killed in concentration camps. They stayed silent as Germany engaged in a war that killed millions more. These Christians forgot who they were, or more importantly, they forgot who they belonged to. Because they never gave their time to become builders of the Kingdom, they didn't know what to do when the time came to truly "live their faith."
Something else was their king—fear. And fear can be a fierce tyrant. I found it interesting this year in the elections the mantra that kept going around was “choose hope over fear.” While I do not doubt some people truly were doing this, I saw the majority of people not choosing hope – but choosing one fear over another a fear. Four years ago, fear of terrorism was what drove us. This year, it was fear over a failing economy. It’s interesting that these things are mentioned in John’s Revelation. John speaks of four things that we sometimes try to put our trust in and try to feel secure about – and if we’re not careful, fear of these things can run our lives. Fear of national conquest, fear of war and violence in our neighborhoods, fear of economic instability, and then ultimately—the fear of death itself.
These are the fears that drove the people of Italy and Nazi Germany as well. And that fear can sometimes paralyze us into inaction. Our active faith becomes an inactive faith, frozen by fear of worldly rulers.
Now this is not to say there weren’t Christians who stood up—there were, and many paid the price. What they didn’t do, however, is they did not let fear rule their life. It doesn’t mean they weren’t afraid—I have no doubt that they were. But fear was not what ruled them. They didn’t let fear of arrest and even death dissuade them from doing… the human thing. They did it because they remembered one thing—they remembered who their supreme ruler really was. They remembered who the true King was. And they remembered that their King was not a tyrant—but a servant. Their king was a king who entered into the depths of hell rather than causing it. Their king was a king who invited them to partake in helping bring heaven to earth. Their king was a king who didn’t seek to escape the harsh realities of life. In fact, their king did the opposite – he entered into those harsh realities—even to the point of death. Their king was a king who didn’t turn a blind eye to the suffering and unpleasantness in life. A king who did not worry about what the rulers of this world were going to do to him. A king who did not seek to save his own life at the expense of others. In fact, he handed his life over in order to save others.
Now this passage naturally instills a certain amount of nervousness in most of us—because we begin wondering, have I done this?—am I going to be a sheep, or a goat? Have I done enough? How frozen by fear and selfishness have I been? And, to be honest, it was designed to do just that. Jesus didn’t say this to make us think that ignoring God’s invitation to be partakers in the kingly responsibilities of caring for and serving others was any small deal. While God certainly doesn’t NEED our help in order to bring about His Kingdom, he has chosen to let us be helpers. It's a gift. In fact, he created us for that very purpose. We are created to be builders! He says these things to move us into action.
While this judgment seems terrifying—let us also remember the nature of our judge and King… the one who rules with love. Instead of ruling from a distant Heavenly throne, he enters into the “hell” of being human. Not only does he enter into the sometimes hellish human experience, but look at the throne he rules from: a cross.
Thus a passage like this is both a warning, and a promise. A warning that neglecting our part in building God’s kingdom, of allowing fear to rule our lives rather than Christ, of caring only for ourselves, being blind to the problems of the world, means that the possibility exists we will then not share in what we did not help build. For if we neglect all these things, we have not been living in faith.
And as much as we hate those kinds of warnings, they do serve a purpose. The purpose is to bring about change. It’s the old story, if a Mack truck is headed your way – wouldn’t you appreciate the warning to get out of its way? Change your route or direction? This is what Jesus is doing—giving a warning so that we jump out of disaster’s way. He does this not for the sole purpose of reprimanding and instilling fear, but because – he loves us. He cares about where we’re headed and what we do. If Jesus didn’t love and care for us, he wouldn’t warn us. Like our mother who warns us, “Look out, that stove’s hot!”
But the amazing promise that is given is those who live out their faith, who have helped build that kingdom, share in everything that the kingdom has to offer. Even if we screw things up most of the time.
Faith is a way of life, not just acknowledgment. Faith is not an “inactive” faith. Faith drives us, it pushes us, it causes us to see Christ in others. It causes us not to be paralyzed into inaction because of fear. Because faith comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is anything but inactive.
This text is always difficult for Lutheran pastor’s to preach. A former professor of mine, Karoline Lewis, illustrated it like this:
As a kid, you go up to your mother or father and say, “My neck hurts when I go like this” – and then demonstrate the pain-inducing move. Our parent’s response: “Well, then don’t do that.” A similar conversation occurs in the minds of preachers for this Sunday. "When I try to preach Christ the King Sunday, my neck hurts." The answer may be something like the following, "Well, then don't preach Christ the King Sunday."
One of the reasons we find this text so difficult to preach is because it is so heavily judgmental, and leans so heavily towards what we would call “works righteousness.” And let’s face it – we don’t like to talk about Jesus as a judge. We don’t exactly name our churches “Judging Jesus Lutheran,” do we? We want a Jesus who overlooks our being lazy, overlooks everything we do and turns a blind eye to sin, neglect, and inaction. After all, it’s faith—not works—that saves…right? This is what we preach as Lutherans.
However, “works righteousness” isn’t exactly what this parable is about. And it certainly isn’t about Jesus turning a blind eye to the injustices of the world. Quite the opposite. However, what this parable does do is it begs the question: What does it mean to have faith in Christ?
Is faith just an intellectual assent that something is true, or is faith something more than that? Does faith mean we sit idly by while God does his thing, or is faith actual participation in God’s Kingdom? Does faith mean that we ignore the things that were important to Christ, or that we pick up our crosses and take an interest in the things Christ was interested in? Do we live our lives in selfish, unproductive ways, or do we live our lives in faith—faith that Christ has not only redeemed us from our sins, but that God actually wants us to be a part of His Kingdom? That we aren’t just observers in the Kingdom of God, sitting on the sidelines not playing, but that we are active participants in helping bring God’s kingdom to earth? We pray this every week, do we not? Thy Kingdom come? And God has invited us and said, “YOU can help!” Do you have faith in God’s kingdom? Then let’s get to work on bringing it about.
If you go back and read Genesis, you’ll find something interesting—God created us not to be slaves, not as some accident like many of the other near eastern myths that were floating around at that time, but to partake in “kingly” duties. Not only does God hand creation over to us to care for, but it says God created us “in his image,” and part of God’s image is the image of a King. Because a king, while yes, is a ruler, is also a servant. Luther described a Christian as being “Lord of all, servant to none; servant to all and Lord of none.” This is what Christ is saying: those who have faith in my kingdom will also be a part of bringing my kingdom about. And in my kingdom – we clothe the poor, feed the hungry, and work for justice.
Because the problem is, when we stop partaking in being a part of building God’s kingdom, not only do we get lazy and selfish, but we start forgetting who exactly our King actually is. We forget who we belong to. It’s for this very reason that Christ the King Sunday was instituted.
Christ the King Sunday is actually a fairly new “holy day” on the church calendar. It was started by the Pope in 1925. Now you have to realize what was going on in Italy in 1925. Mussolini became Prime Minister of Italy in 1922 and by 1925 had declared himself the “supreme leader” of Italy. During Mussolini’s reign, he committed unspeakable atrocities against his fellow human. The King of Italy turned a blind eye, however, because he was fearful of Mussolini and his party. Of course, we also know Mussolini was followed by someone who became an even bigger “supreme leader” – Hitler. The atrocities that were carried out throughout both Italy and Nazi Germany were allowed to happen for one reason and one reason only – people forgot who the true “Supreme Leader” really was. They allowed swastikas to adorn their pulpits and sat silently as millions of Jews, misfits, and what society considered “undesirables” were carried off and killed in concentration camps. They stayed silent as Germany engaged in a war that killed millions more. These Christians forgot who they were, or more importantly, they forgot who they belonged to. Because they never gave their time to become builders of the Kingdom, they didn't know what to do when the time came to truly "live their faith."
Something else was their king—fear. And fear can be a fierce tyrant. I found it interesting this year in the elections the mantra that kept going around was “choose hope over fear.” While I do not doubt some people truly were doing this, I saw the majority of people not choosing hope – but choosing one fear over another a fear. Four years ago, fear of terrorism was what drove us. This year, it was fear over a failing economy. It’s interesting that these things are mentioned in John’s Revelation. John speaks of four things that we sometimes try to put our trust in and try to feel secure about – and if we’re not careful, fear of these things can run our lives. Fear of national conquest, fear of war and violence in our neighborhoods, fear of economic instability, and then ultimately—the fear of death itself.
These are the fears that drove the people of Italy and Nazi Germany as well. And that fear can sometimes paralyze us into inaction. Our active faith becomes an inactive faith, frozen by fear of worldly rulers.
Now this is not to say there weren’t Christians who stood up—there were, and many paid the price. What they didn’t do, however, is they did not let fear rule their life. It doesn’t mean they weren’t afraid—I have no doubt that they were. But fear was not what ruled them. They didn’t let fear of arrest and even death dissuade them from doing… the human thing. They did it because they remembered one thing—they remembered who their supreme ruler really was. They remembered who the true King was. And they remembered that their King was not a tyrant—but a servant. Their king was a king who entered into the depths of hell rather than causing it. Their king was a king who invited them to partake in helping bring heaven to earth. Their king was a king who didn’t seek to escape the harsh realities of life. In fact, their king did the opposite – he entered into those harsh realities—even to the point of death. Their king was a king who didn’t turn a blind eye to the suffering and unpleasantness in life. A king who did not worry about what the rulers of this world were going to do to him. A king who did not seek to save his own life at the expense of others. In fact, he handed his life over in order to save others.
Now this passage naturally instills a certain amount of nervousness in most of us—because we begin wondering, have I done this?—am I going to be a sheep, or a goat? Have I done enough? How frozen by fear and selfishness have I been? And, to be honest, it was designed to do just that. Jesus didn’t say this to make us think that ignoring God’s invitation to be partakers in the kingly responsibilities of caring for and serving others was any small deal. While God certainly doesn’t NEED our help in order to bring about His Kingdom, he has chosen to let us be helpers. It's a gift. In fact, he created us for that very purpose. We are created to be builders! He says these things to move us into action.
While this judgment seems terrifying—let us also remember the nature of our judge and King… the one who rules with love. Instead of ruling from a distant Heavenly throne, he enters into the “hell” of being human. Not only does he enter into the sometimes hellish human experience, but look at the throne he rules from: a cross.
Thus a passage like this is both a warning, and a promise. A warning that neglecting our part in building God’s kingdom, of allowing fear to rule our lives rather than Christ, of caring only for ourselves, being blind to the problems of the world, means that the possibility exists we will then not share in what we did not help build. For if we neglect all these things, we have not been living in faith.
And as much as we hate those kinds of warnings, they do serve a purpose. The purpose is to bring about change. It’s the old story, if a Mack truck is headed your way – wouldn’t you appreciate the warning to get out of its way? Change your route or direction? This is what Jesus is doing—giving a warning so that we jump out of disaster’s way. He does this not for the sole purpose of reprimanding and instilling fear, but because – he loves us. He cares about where we’re headed and what we do. If Jesus didn’t love and care for us, he wouldn’t warn us. Like our mother who warns us, “Look out, that stove’s hot!”
But the amazing promise that is given is those who live out their faith, who have helped build that kingdom, share in everything that the kingdom has to offer. Even if we screw things up most of the time.
Faith is a way of life, not just acknowledgment. Faith is not an “inactive” faith. Faith drives us, it pushes us, it causes us to see Christ in others. It causes us not to be paralyzed into inaction because of fear. Because faith comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is anything but inactive.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
"Tis the season to attack Christmas..."
Oh goody. It's that time of year again! The articles are already pouring in about how humanist atheists are once again trying to "get rid" of Christmas. Normally, I just roll my eyes at this and go on my merry way. However, admittedly, this latest article I came across in the Lincoln Journal Star I found somewhat irritating.
The article headline from the Nov. 12th Journal Star paper was entitled "God Humbug: Humanist Holiday Ads Say 'Just Be Good.'" Apparently, the American Humanist Association out of D.C. has spent $40,000 on an ad campaign that states: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," and will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. In and of itself, the ad is not something that would irritate me. They want to spend $40,000 on that, it's their money and they're free to express their opinion. (Though I am a bit perplexed as to the purpose of trying to "convert" people to atheism. The logic escapes me. I mean, most other religions, Christianity in particular, do it - at its core - because they honestly believe that there is danger in NOT believing. But what does the atheist gain other than getting people to believe along with him/her so they're not alone in their belief that there is nothing beyond this life?)
What captured my attention, however, was their "reason" for doing this. It was as follows:
If the humanists want to celebrate something of their own during that time, fine - make up their own holiday like celebrating the missing link of evolution no one can find, or celebrate the death of the dinosaurs that was the impetus for giving rise to humans as the dominate species on earth. I personally won't celebrate it, but if they want to, by all means, go for it. And I won't feel "alone" or "left out" even if it were to become a national holiday. I'd just do a happy dance that I got another day off from work.
But why tear down a holiday that others find so meaningful and wondrous? What is the purpose? What fear drives this sort of desire to undermine people's faith lives?
Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group, continued by stating:
Sure, there are some things that do seem like foolishness to the world, like God displaying his power through something like the cross doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most human understandings. I think Mark Allan Powell stated it best, though, that when we rely on reason and knowledge alone, it's like trying to sit on a two-legged stool.
And I just LOVE the argument that gets thrown out that religion is a "crutch." I had an atheist argue the following with me one time: "[religion] is a crutch to avoid thinking about the harsh realities of life..." I had to actually laugh at the "irrational" voice behind this statement. First of all, crutches are quite useful when you have a broken leg. It helps with the healing process. Second, to not use the crutch is kind of stupid, as it will continue to put pressure on your broken bone and slow the healing process, if not leave you completely hobbled because you don't allow the bone to heal properly. The "logical" thing would be... to use the crutch. I embrace my spiritual "crutch" that I have in Christ, and I will gladly proclaim that.
It just makes me sad that there are people out there that are apparently so unhappy that the only cause they can find in life is to try and drag everyone down to their level of misery. If they're feeling alone and left out at Christmas--then perhaps they need to think about why that is. I don't feel left out of things I have no desire to participate in. If, however, they have some desire to participate - and really, no one is stopping them but themselves - I think that is the question that needs to be addressed rather than attempting to remove the celebration they feel left out of. The reason one should be upset about being left out of something is if one wanted to participate in the first place, but simply wasn't invited or allowed to attend. I don't think too many Christians out there would tell an atheist they weren't welcome in celebrating Christmas with them. The problem is, these atheists simply don't like Christmas because they disagree with what it stands for, not because they feel "left out" or alone.
The same right that the atheists are engaging in is the right that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc, engage in as well. It's called freedom of religion - the freedom to practice one's religion without fear of persecution. Our celebrating Christmas in now way infringes upon an atheists right NOT to celebrate Christmas. The U.S. Constitution does not state within the clause of the first amendment that we have freedom "from" religion, but rather, freedom "of" religion. In fact, the wording is that the U.S. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Christmas is one of the ways that Christians exercise their religion and we have a constitutional right to do so.
Don't like Christmas? Don't participate. It's that simple.
1. Diane Jacobson, Mark Allan Powell, Stanley N. Olson, Opening the Book of Faith: Lutheran Insights for Bible Study, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2008) 24
The article headline from the Nov. 12th Journal Star paper was entitled "God Humbug: Humanist Holiday Ads Say 'Just Be Good.'" Apparently, the American Humanist Association out of D.C. has spent $40,000 on an ad campaign that states: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," and will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. In and of itself, the ad is not something that would irritate me. They want to spend $40,000 on that, it's their money and they're free to express their opinion. (Though I am a bit perplexed as to the purpose of trying to "convert" people to atheism. The logic escapes me. I mean, most other religions, Christianity in particular, do it - at its core - because they honestly believe that there is danger in NOT believing. But what does the atheist gain other than getting people to believe along with him/her so they're not alone in their belief that there is nothing beyond this life?)
What captured my attention, however, was their "reason" for doing this. It was as follows:
"Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."I guess my question would be... why do they feel "alone"? If everyone else in my neighborhood was celebrating Mahashivaratri (the Hindu night that is sacred to Shiva) and I wasn't because it wasn't something I believed in, so what? Maybe I'm just being thick here, that's always a possibility with me, but I fail to understand why there is this need by humanists/atheists to undermine and do away with religious festivals simply because they don't wish to participate in them. I mean, when I'm in Palm Springs and the Gay Pride Parade is going on, I don't usually go and participate because I'm not gay and I don't really feel the need to participate in that parade. I certainly don't feel "left out" by any means, however, and I'm not going to say they can't have it because I'm not gay.
If the humanists want to celebrate something of their own during that time, fine - make up their own holiday like celebrating the missing link of evolution no one can find, or celebrate the death of the dinosaurs that was the impetus for giving rise to humans as the dominate species on earth. I personally won't celebrate it, but if they want to, by all means, go for it. And I won't feel "alone" or "left out" even if it were to become a national holiday. I'd just do a happy dance that I got another day off from work.
But why tear down a holiday that others find so meaningful and wondrous? What is the purpose? What fear drives this sort of desire to undermine people's faith lives?
Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group, continued by stating:
"...we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds."While I'll grant you, there are many "irrational" Christians out there, the arrogance implied in his statement is that only atheists and humanists are somehow "rational and critical" thinkers, and it's their "planting" of the seed that will somehow cause us all to be rational and critical thinkers. I suppose there are many that would take issue with my rationality sometimes, but I don't think someone who's religious ceases to be rational. After all, many of our greatest leaps in scientific discovery were made by "religious" people. Sir Isaac Newton, while best known for his "discovery" of the concept of gravity, wrote far more books on theological issues than he ever did on mathematics. Does that make him "irrational" and not a "critical thinker"? While yes, the church had its period of stupidity when it tried to squash certain scientific thoughts and discoveries, religion in and of itself is not in opposition to rational and critical thought.
Sure, there are some things that do seem like foolishness to the world, like God displaying his power through something like the cross doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most human understandings. I think Mark Allan Powell stated it best, though, that when we rely on reason and knowledge alone, it's like trying to sit on a two-legged stool.
Secular or pagan philosophy often claims that there are two primary sources for knowing the truth: reason and experience. We believe some things are true because they are logical and rational. We believe other things are true because experience and observation reveal them to be true. But Christian philosophers sometimes claim that this is only a two-legged stool. If you take everything that is possible to know through reason and experience, you still do not have a sturdy or reliable grasp of the truth. There is a third leg: divine revelation. We know certain things to be true because God has revealed them.1The difference between an atheist's reason and a Christian's reason is that for the "rational" Christian, reason and experience are the God-given avenues through which we can come to know the truth. The fact that the humanist chooses to remove God from the equation and rely on human evolutionary processes is fine, and he or she is certainly free to do so, but simply because he/she attributes the source of his rationale to humans and humans alone does not make the religious individual who attributes his/her rationale to something that is more divine in origins any less "rational" or any less a critical thinker.
And I just LOVE the argument that gets thrown out that religion is a "crutch." I had an atheist argue the following with me one time: "[religion] is a crutch to avoid thinking about the harsh realities of life..." I had to actually laugh at the "irrational" voice behind this statement. First of all, crutches are quite useful when you have a broken leg. It helps with the healing process. Second, to not use the crutch is kind of stupid, as it will continue to put pressure on your broken bone and slow the healing process, if not leave you completely hobbled because you don't allow the bone to heal properly. The "logical" thing would be... to use the crutch. I embrace my spiritual "crutch" that I have in Christ, and I will gladly proclaim that.
It just makes me sad that there are people out there that are apparently so unhappy that the only cause they can find in life is to try and drag everyone down to their level of misery. If they're feeling alone and left out at Christmas--then perhaps they need to think about why that is. I don't feel left out of things I have no desire to participate in. If, however, they have some desire to participate - and really, no one is stopping them but themselves - I think that is the question that needs to be addressed rather than attempting to remove the celebration they feel left out of. The reason one should be upset about being left out of something is if one wanted to participate in the first place, but simply wasn't invited or allowed to attend. I don't think too many Christians out there would tell an atheist they weren't welcome in celebrating Christmas with them. The problem is, these atheists simply don't like Christmas because they disagree with what it stands for, not because they feel "left out" or alone.
The same right that the atheists are engaging in is the right that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc, engage in as well. It's called freedom of religion - the freedom to practice one's religion without fear of persecution. Our celebrating Christmas in now way infringes upon an atheists right NOT to celebrate Christmas. The U.S. Constitution does not state within the clause of the first amendment that we have freedom "from" religion, but rather, freedom "of" religion. In fact, the wording is that the U.S. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Christmas is one of the ways that Christians exercise their religion and we have a constitutional right to do so.
Don't like Christmas? Don't participate. It's that simple.
1. Diane Jacobson, Mark Allan Powell, Stanley N. Olson, Opening the Book of Faith: Lutheran Insights for Bible Study, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2008) 24
Sunday, October 26, 2008
How Receiving "Hate Mail" Can Spawn a Deeper Understanding of Scripture
While no one likes to receive "hate mail" in response to something they've said or written, I, personally, have found it to be a great tool for honing my arguments and delving deeper into what I believe about scripture. Recently, I received one of these caustic letters that called me an "usurper," "blasphemer," and someone who wanted to interpret scripture so that it fit my own wanton desires...all because I wrote an article that defended a woman's right to hold the office of pastor - apparently in defiance of 1 Timothy. I was told to take scripture at "face value" and not question or challenge the obvious meaning behind the parts of scripture that stated women should hold no authority over men.
While sure, the words can sting a bit, and naturally, just royally tick me off to a certain degree, I actually feel somewhat better for the experience. Strange, I know, but I do enjoy having my stances challenged. Even though I know I am probably going to be unable to reason with an individual who refuses to listen to any sort of argument that challenges their "literal" or "face value" interpretation of scripture (and the fact that I was a woman meant in his mind whatever I had to say was null and void anyway...), it forces me to think even deeper about an issue, re-open scripture and take a look at what it is saying. Naturally, there is always that niggling little fear of "gee, what if he's right? What if I am doing this for my own wanton desires and am just grasping at interpretations that I like but aren't necessarily scripturally sound?" After all, God's word is God's word, but our understanding of God's word can sometimes be VERY flawed. I'm no exception.
Luckily for me, this time, my stance on this issue only solidified further because I began looking even more broadly at the 1 Timothy text and realized something rather startling as I did so... Paul actually negates himself from being a leader in the church if the stipulations set forth are to be adhered to for all times and all places!
1 Timothy states that church leaders are to be above reproach--yet Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians before his conversion! It says that they should not be quarrelsome, and we know for a fact that Paul frequently quarreled with the church in Jerusalem, with his own companions (Barnabas actually left and went his own way over a dispute with Paul), and with someone at Corinth (see 2 Corinthians). Leaders should also be "well thought of by outsiders." Hmmmm... I remember at least one letter where Paul had to defend his position as an apostle because people didn't like him much. Thus, Paul was apparently violating his own ordinances!
However, as I continued to engage in the argument with this man, I found myself thinking about the Pharisees, and how they misinterpreted the "intent" of scripture and were focused so heavily on the "letter of the law." Jesus' chastisement of the Pharisees runs throughout all the gospels, but in particular, I remembered how Jesus was constantly "reinterpreting" scripture for them. They missed the intention of why the law existed in the first place, and that it certainly wasn't so that they could neglect helping other people. In particular, I was reminded of how they screwed up the Sabbath laws, being so concerned about making sure they didn't "work" that they neglected helping people.
This then led me to something else Jesus had to say about "the weightier matters of the law" and "straining gnats" in Matthew 23. I re-read this entire chapter and realized... you know what, Jesus DOES point out that there are things in scripture that actually ARE more important than others! This doesn't mean other things are somehow "negated" or that some of these "smaller points" are not still important, but that if justice, mercy and faith are compromised in order to carry out some of these smaller points, then we have our priorities a little mixed up.
As frequently happens, I was reading Matthew 23 and I had some vague recollection that I'd read something else about this particular topic one time as well - so I pulled out my "Opening the Book of Faith" book and Mark Allan Powell's section "How Can Lutheran Insights Open Up The Bible?" The parts that caught my attention were as follows:
Thus, I think there are three things that we must always ask ourselves when we are working on interpreting scripture:
Oh, I knew that in theory, but for some reason it took this "individual" pushing me to analyze the issue further that I truly understood what that meant. The "intention" of 1 Timothy is how to deal with good order in the church and how to teach sound doctrine. The issues that were impeding those tasks in the first century are somewhat different than the issues that impede us today. Clinging to the same solutions don't help us solve the problem--and in many cases turns into an oppressive doctrine that hampers the gospel, justice, and mercy. It doesn't make what 1 Timothy says untrue, it simply doesn't make it completely applicable to the here and now.
If one of the larger issues of scripture is spreading the gospel of Christ, oppressing a majority of the world's population (women) from engaging in that activity simply makes no sense in light of the rest of scripture. Is stifling a woman's gifts for ministry going to further the gospel? Is it engaging in love, mercy and faith? In short... no. It isn't. So what was the "intent" of 1 Timothy? To stop the teachings of false teachers. How is that accomplished? By removing the women who had fallen prey to these false teachers from teaching others--in particular the men.
So, if the guy who sent me hate email should ever run across this blog, I'd like to say "Thank you, you helped me find even more reason to think the way I do!" :-)
At any rate - to read my short article about Christians becoming like the Pharisees, click here.
While sure, the words can sting a bit, and naturally, just royally tick me off to a certain degree, I actually feel somewhat better for the experience. Strange, I know, but I do enjoy having my stances challenged. Even though I know I am probably going to be unable to reason with an individual who refuses to listen to any sort of argument that challenges their "literal" or "face value" interpretation of scripture (and the fact that I was a woman meant in his mind whatever I had to say was null and void anyway...), it forces me to think even deeper about an issue, re-open scripture and take a look at what it is saying. Naturally, there is always that niggling little fear of "gee, what if he's right? What if I am doing this for my own wanton desires and am just grasping at interpretations that I like but aren't necessarily scripturally sound?" After all, God's word is God's word, but our understanding of God's word can sometimes be VERY flawed. I'm no exception.
Luckily for me, this time, my stance on this issue only solidified further because I began looking even more broadly at the 1 Timothy text and realized something rather startling as I did so... Paul actually negates himself from being a leader in the church if the stipulations set forth are to be adhered to for all times and all places!
1 Timothy states that church leaders are to be above reproach--yet Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians before his conversion! It says that they should not be quarrelsome, and we know for a fact that Paul frequently quarreled with the church in Jerusalem, with his own companions (Barnabas actually left and went his own way over a dispute with Paul), and with someone at Corinth (see 2 Corinthians). Leaders should also be "well thought of by outsiders." Hmmmm... I remember at least one letter where Paul had to defend his position as an apostle because people didn't like him much. Thus, Paul was apparently violating his own ordinances!
However, as I continued to engage in the argument with this man, I found myself thinking about the Pharisees, and how they misinterpreted the "intent" of scripture and were focused so heavily on the "letter of the law." Jesus' chastisement of the Pharisees runs throughout all the gospels, but in particular, I remembered how Jesus was constantly "reinterpreting" scripture for them. They missed the intention of why the law existed in the first place, and that it certainly wasn't so that they could neglect helping other people. In particular, I was reminded of how they screwed up the Sabbath laws, being so concerned about making sure they didn't "work" that they neglected helping people.
This then led me to something else Jesus had to say about "the weightier matters of the law" and "straining gnats" in Matthew 23. I re-read this entire chapter and realized... you know what, Jesus DOES point out that there are things in scripture that actually ARE more important than others! This doesn't mean other things are somehow "negated" or that some of these "smaller points" are not still important, but that if justice, mercy and faith are compromised in order to carry out some of these smaller points, then we have our priorities a little mixed up.
As frequently happens, I was reading Matthew 23 and I had some vague recollection that I'd read something else about this particular topic one time as well - so I pulled out my "Opening the Book of Faith" book and Mark Allan Powell's section "How Can Lutheran Insights Open Up The Bible?" The parts that caught my attention were as follows:
"There is a famous bumper sticker that reads, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Lutherans would want it to be a little bit longer: we would want to say something about understanding what God has said. It doesn't do any good to believe what you think the Bible teaches if you have misunderstood what the bible teaches. What would we want the bumper sticker to say? 'God speaks to us through the Bible, we interpret the Bible to understand what God wants to say, and then we believe it--and THAT settles it.' But of course, that is much too long. Lutherans have never been good at bumper stickers." (p.27)I knew I had always followed this line of thinking, but this just clarified it into terms that were more clearly understood. Combining this way of interpreting scripture with the contextual issues that are always present, I felt solidified in my understandings of 1 Timothy. It isn't that we should just ignore 1 Timothy, but we must look at the overall "themes" of 1 Timothy, while also being conscious of the context into which 1 Timothy was written.
"Lutherans believe that difficult passages of Scripture are to be interpreted in light of those passages that are more readily understandable, and that all of scripture is to be interpreted in light of the Bible's central themes and motifs. We often try to reconcile what is said in one part of Scripture with what is said in other parts of Scripture, sometimes recognizing that there is tension between texts that seem to say different things. We try to be faithful to the entire Bible rather than just picking some parts and leaving others alone...This principle of interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture keeps us from using individual verse to justify things that might not pass muster with Scripture as a whole...The goal is to find the heart of Scripture so that we don't end up majoring in minors. Some religious people in Jesus' day got in trouble because they concentrated on little concerns and ignored big ones...In practice, interpreting scripture in light of scripture means that Lutherans must do some initial work at defining the teaching of "scripture as a whole" so that they will be able to interpret individual passages in light of the broader themes and overall message. When we do this, people who are not Lutheran often think that we are interpreting the Bible in light of our own theology. We understand why they think that, but we think that we are interpreting scripture (individual passages) in light of scripture (the Bible as a whole)." (pp.33-35)
Thus, I think there are three things that we must always ask ourselves when we are working on interpreting scripture:
- What is the context within scripture? Are there other parts of scripture that uphold or contradict this passage?
- What is the context socially? What was going on that would have prompted this passage to be written?
- What was the intent? What was the "theme" or issue that is being addressed?
Oh, I knew that in theory, but for some reason it took this "individual" pushing me to analyze the issue further that I truly understood what that meant. The "intention" of 1 Timothy is how to deal with good order in the church and how to teach sound doctrine. The issues that were impeding those tasks in the first century are somewhat different than the issues that impede us today. Clinging to the same solutions don't help us solve the problem--and in many cases turns into an oppressive doctrine that hampers the gospel, justice, and mercy. It doesn't make what 1 Timothy says untrue, it simply doesn't make it completely applicable to the here and now.
If one of the larger issues of scripture is spreading the gospel of Christ, oppressing a majority of the world's population (women) from engaging in that activity simply makes no sense in light of the rest of scripture. Is stifling a woman's gifts for ministry going to further the gospel? Is it engaging in love, mercy and faith? In short... no. It isn't. So what was the "intent" of 1 Timothy? To stop the teachings of false teachers. How is that accomplished? By removing the women who had fallen prey to these false teachers from teaching others--in particular the men.
So, if the guy who sent me hate email should ever run across this blog, I'd like to say "Thank you, you helped me find even more reason to think the way I do!" :-)
At any rate - to read my short article about Christians becoming like the Pharisees, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)