Over the past few days, several things related to Jesus and/or faith have caught my attention. One of my oft-repeated prayers is that the Spirit would open my eyes, mind, and heart to God's presence throughout the day. Sometimes that happens without me having to look at all - it's just there. Here those things that have caught my eye, engaged my mind, and warmed or challenged my heart over the past week:
- Stephen Colbert's excellent segment titled "Jesus is a Liberal Democrat". The last sentence is a sermon in itself. I was going to list O'Reilly's op-ed, but Colbert eviscerates it enough without me giving it a shot. O'Reilly ought to sit with Philippians 2:5-11 for a while. Here's O'Reilly's op-ed: "Keep Christ in Unemployment"
- There's an article by Judson Phillips (a Tea Party figure) making the rounds among my Methodist Facebook friends. Here's the blog post: "My Dream: No More Methodist Church" There is plenty of stuff in that blog post to unpack, dismantle, and obliterate. Perhaps at another time.
- Today, I was out and about looking for a cd of instrumental Christmas music for our drop-in communion on Christmas Eve. As I was walking out of the Lifeway Store, I saw a license tag that read: "Favor Ain't Fair". Like the aforementioned blog post by Mr. Phillips, that statement raises a few issues for me.
But here's what I was thinking today as I was driving around. Faith in Jesus is deeply contested territory. And this is not a novel idea to me, I just don't think about it that often. People envision and present Jesus in innumerable ways, some I find to be Biblically appropriate, some are completely powerless and incapable of offering heart/mind/life transformation, and some are downright wrong or offensive. As a preacher, one of my tasks is to present or express an understanding or vision of Jesus that is effective and that might offer the congregation an invitation to salvation. This is one of the most important reasons that I believe firmly in theological training. When I preach on Sunday mornings, I am not playing games. When we speak of God and claim authority in doing so (an authority that belongs to all who are called to witness - meaning, every Christian - see 2 Corinthians 5:20), it is serious business. I think some things are necessary when speaking about Jesus or faith in Jesus in a very public way (with a glance at Messrs. O'Reilly and Phillips):
1. As a fallible person, prone to mistakes and sin, my posture is one of humility. As evangelist D.T. Niles put it, "Evangelism is a beggar showing another beggar where to find food." There is a sickness at the heart of American Christianity that is a potent mix of entitlement ("Favor Ain't Fair"), nationalistic hubris and exceptionalism, and a take-no-prisoners approach that brooks no compromise or disagreement. Contrast this not-even-close-to-exhaustive list (and the above articles) with the actual ministry and teaching of Jesus. Prayerful humility keeps us focused on Jesus and continually takes the focus off of ourselves and our own theological, philosophical, political, or ideological axes to grind.
2. Faith in Jesus requires a ever-deepening prayer life. This only leads to greater humility. And not simply praying for God's favor for your own life, but learning what it means to have a life of prayer. Learning the art of prayer. This takes much time and practice. As for me, I'm only beginning and I am often pretty terrible at it. But God's working with me. Seeking a serious prayer life means that you believe that Jesus is alive, that the Spirit of God is at work, and that God hears and speaks in prayer. It also indicates a willingness to be changed in any area of your life.
3. Reading, knowing, and living God's Word. One thing I noticed while reading Mr. O'Reilly's op-ed and Mr. Phillips' blog post is that neither quoted Scripture. It's awfully hard to make definitive statements about the Christian faith and a major Christian denomination without referencing Scripture, at least once. A good starting place for both gentlemen would be John 3:16, followed by Romans 12 (all of it), I Corinthians 12 (all of it), Mark 8:34-38, Acts 2:43-47, I could go on...and I didn't even mention the Sermon on the Mount, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery....
4. For too long, we Americans have battled over a representation of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that is more defined by our own political or social agendas than by the witness of Scripture or the Church. If the Church in America is to not only survive but thrive, we must move beyond a left/right or liberal/conservative divide and understand that God is the God of all people, not just people I agree with. That might sound overly-idealistic or simplistic, but so often people assume that if they have a deeply held conviction, then Jesus obviously sides with them. See point 1...
5. I am encouraged by the explosive growth of Christianity in Africa, South America, and Asia. Perhaps this will help us to see God's activity, the movement of the Spirit, and the person of Jesus Christ in new and challenging ways, ways not warped by conspicuous consumption, hubristic nationalism, empty cultural relevance, or any number of ways that we limit and cheapen the Gospel of our Savior. Not that these other cultural perspectives are in some way inherently superior to our own, but simply being exposed to differing points of view allows us to challenge our lazy assumptions and self-righteous tendencies. See point 1 (again).
Closing thought, related to the "Favor Ain't Fair" license plate (I've said this at least 5 or 6 times from the pulpit): Jesus was not born, did not teach and minister, did not die and rise again so that you could be happy. He did this so you could be made holy.
Peace and Grace to all of you...have a blessed and merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Some Thoughts Early in the Advent Season
Yesterday was the first Sunday in Advent. This season is becoming more important to me for several reasons. In years past, I have been more attuned to Lent and the focus on repentance and the spiritual disciplines. However, the longer that I am in pastoral ministry, the more I come to see the importance and necessity of what Advent has to offer. Both Advent and Lent have difficult words for those of us who identify as "American Christians". And both of these messages are typically missed, by many in the church and by the world at large. In the case of Advent, the "Christmas" noise drowns out the voice of prophets and the miracle of God's presence with us in Jesus Christ. In the case of Lent, many folks aren't even aware that's going on, even within the church - Easter is not nearly as culturally celebrated as Christmas. Anyway, I'm beginning to learn more about Advent as it relates to my own faith simply because, as the preacher, I have to have something to say about it on Sunday morning.
1) Advent goes against the flow of the culture. The season of Advent is about waiting on the promise of God to be fulfilled. As a Christian, I believe that God's promise has been ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ. However, the Kingdom that Jesus has inaugurated has not yet been fulfilled. We are living in that extended moment of expectation, between the already and the not yet, still waiting for God to complete the work of reconciliation. Paul lists patience as a fruit of the Spirit and we are told by Isaiah that "those who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength". Surely that is a word of challenge for us in a world when "instant" is the expectation. Many of us have simply forgotten how to wait on anything. I especially see this in how children are no longer allowed to simply be bored and wait for something. I remember riding to the beach (4 hours from where I grew up - and 4 hours is FOREVER for a kid) and having three options: (1) listening to and trying to enjoy whatever my dad wanted to listen to on the radio (Elton John or Loggins & Messina, not very exciting to a 10-year-old, or maybe a NASCAR race which was excruciating); (2) sleeping; or (3) looking out the window and daydreaming, which is what I usually did. In short, I was bored. Now it seems that every other van or SUV that I pass has a DVD player. We don't have one in our van, but for any trip over three hours, we plug in the laptop and let the kids watch movies - so I'm not carping on this too much. Sitting, waiting, being bored - these are increasingly becoming intolerable in our culture, especially for kids. And Advent asks us to sit and wait. Expect. Be on the lookout. Be watchful. Wait. Yes, even slow down. Or maybe stop. And how realistic is it for us to stop in this season? Again, it's going against the flow of the culture.
2) Advent asks us to take the Incarnation seriously. Thankfully, the hue and cry about the so-called "War on Christmas" has died down somewhat over the past couple of years, but you still see people getting hyper-focused on the assumed erosion of the "real meaning" of Christmas. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - the "real" meaning of Christmas has never figured prominently in our culture. I'm guessing that most in our culture would say that the meaning of Christmas is about: spending time with our family, peace on earth, giving and receiving presents, or something along those lines. Those things are wonderful, but that's not the meaning of Christmas. The meaning of Christmas is best expressed in John 1:14 - "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That's Christmas - God put on human flesh and became one of us. And the Christmas story itself is full of danger, discomfort, fear, and, yes, glory, praise, and wonder. Christmas is about how the world received God in the person of Jesus - as an outsider, a threat, unwelcome. This is how the "world" still receives God (using the term "world" is a bit tricky - maybe I'll write about that later). Advent is a time when the church should do some soul-searching about how we receive God ourselves and how we offer our God to the world. Perhaps especially that last bit - how is the Church "putting on Jesus Christ" (to paraphrase Paul)? How does the world experience or understand God through the witness and work of the church?
3) Advent is about a God Who is active in the world. The God we find in Scripture, the God we find in the manger, is a God at work in the world and in our lives. No watchmaker God for us Christians. For me, the most exciting thing about being a Christian is the joy of awakening to what God is doing in the world around me and joining in that work. Advent calls us to that awakening and that work. As Paul says in yesterday's Scripture from Romans 13: "you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep." In Advent, if we allow ourselves to wait and to watch, pull back even a little from maddening rush of what this time of year has become for so many of us, we will be amazed at how God is at work in our world.
4) Finally, another thing I love about Advent is the willingness of so many of us, Christian or not, to embrace joy. I think in many ways, God's peace and joy shine through even the often meager efforts we undertake. And as Christians, we should be at the vanguard of God's peace and joy movement. For too long, the church has been perceived as joyless, heartless, judgmental, and harsh. What better time than Advent to make that negative perception obsolete!
I'm thankful for this time of the year and am looking forward to what God might teach us as we wait and watch. I'm thankful for the opportunities throughout this season of Advent and Christmas to fellowship with my church family, reach out to the needy in our community, spend time with family, and focus on how God is at work in my own life. I'm mostly thankful for God's gift of Jesus Christ to this broken world and to me, a sinner. God be praised!
1) Advent goes against the flow of the culture. The season of Advent is about waiting on the promise of God to be fulfilled. As a Christian, I believe that God's promise has been ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ. However, the Kingdom that Jesus has inaugurated has not yet been fulfilled. We are living in that extended moment of expectation, between the already and the not yet, still waiting for God to complete the work of reconciliation. Paul lists patience as a fruit of the Spirit and we are told by Isaiah that "those who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength". Surely that is a word of challenge for us in a world when "instant" is the expectation. Many of us have simply forgotten how to wait on anything. I especially see this in how children are no longer allowed to simply be bored and wait for something. I remember riding to the beach (4 hours from where I grew up - and 4 hours is FOREVER for a kid) and having three options: (1) listening to and trying to enjoy whatever my dad wanted to listen to on the radio (Elton John or Loggins & Messina, not very exciting to a 10-year-old, or maybe a NASCAR race which was excruciating); (2) sleeping; or (3) looking out the window and daydreaming, which is what I usually did. In short, I was bored. Now it seems that every other van or SUV that I pass has a DVD player. We don't have one in our van, but for any trip over three hours, we plug in the laptop and let the kids watch movies - so I'm not carping on this too much. Sitting, waiting, being bored - these are increasingly becoming intolerable in our culture, especially for kids. And Advent asks us to sit and wait. Expect. Be on the lookout. Be watchful. Wait. Yes, even slow down. Or maybe stop. And how realistic is it for us to stop in this season? Again, it's going against the flow of the culture.
2) Advent asks us to take the Incarnation seriously. Thankfully, the hue and cry about the so-called "War on Christmas" has died down somewhat over the past couple of years, but you still see people getting hyper-focused on the assumed erosion of the "real meaning" of Christmas. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - the "real" meaning of Christmas has never figured prominently in our culture. I'm guessing that most in our culture would say that the meaning of Christmas is about: spending time with our family, peace on earth, giving and receiving presents, or something along those lines. Those things are wonderful, but that's not the meaning of Christmas. The meaning of Christmas is best expressed in John 1:14 - "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That's Christmas - God put on human flesh and became one of us. And the Christmas story itself is full of danger, discomfort, fear, and, yes, glory, praise, and wonder. Christmas is about how the world received God in the person of Jesus - as an outsider, a threat, unwelcome. This is how the "world" still receives God (using the term "world" is a bit tricky - maybe I'll write about that later). Advent is a time when the church should do some soul-searching about how we receive God ourselves and how we offer our God to the world. Perhaps especially that last bit - how is the Church "putting on Jesus Christ" (to paraphrase Paul)? How does the world experience or understand God through the witness and work of the church?
3) Advent is about a God Who is active in the world. The God we find in Scripture, the God we find in the manger, is a God at work in the world and in our lives. No watchmaker God for us Christians. For me, the most exciting thing about being a Christian is the joy of awakening to what God is doing in the world around me and joining in that work. Advent calls us to that awakening and that work. As Paul says in yesterday's Scripture from Romans 13: "you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep." In Advent, if we allow ourselves to wait and to watch, pull back even a little from maddening rush of what this time of year has become for so many of us, we will be amazed at how God is at work in our world.
4) Finally, another thing I love about Advent is the willingness of so many of us, Christian or not, to embrace joy. I think in many ways, God's peace and joy shine through even the often meager efforts we undertake. And as Christians, we should be at the vanguard of God's peace and joy movement. For too long, the church has been perceived as joyless, heartless, judgmental, and harsh. What better time than Advent to make that negative perception obsolete!
I'm thankful for this time of the year and am looking forward to what God might teach us as we wait and watch. I'm thankful for the opportunities throughout this season of Advent and Christmas to fellowship with my church family, reach out to the needy in our community, spend time with family, and focus on how God is at work in my own life. I'm mostly thankful for God's gift of Jesus Christ to this broken world and to me, a sinner. God be praised!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
It's Not Time Yet...Be Patient!
I posted the following as my facebook status update the other day: "why don't we just go ahead and listen to Christmas music in September...geez, people, it's not even Thanksgiving yet!" I got a number of responses. Some agreed, some playfully disagreed, and some folks seemed downright offended. As I was thinking about how many people responded and how quickly, I began to ponder the way American culture marks the Christmas holiday and how that shapes how Christians mark this holiday.
Disclaimer: I love Christmas. It is my favorite time of the year. I love the decorations, time with family, giving and receiving gifts, the food, the movies (especially It's a Wonderful Life), the music, the peacefulness of Christmas Eve - all of it!
1) We should know the roots of our Christmas celebration. The holiday of Christmas was not celebrated until late in the 4th century (the year 336 is the earliest mention of the date of Dec. 25th that we have. The early Church Father Clement of Alexandria suggested May 20th as the date for Christ's birth). The Christian celebration of Christ's birth replaced the earlier Roman celebration of Saturnalia, which was marked by feasts, gatherings, and goofy parties. The typical greeting on Saturnalia was "Lo, Saturnalia!" which was pronounced "e-o", a Latin interjection (kind of like "hey!") and was related to "Ho!" And it's a small step to "Ho Ho Ho!" (Just an interesting little bit of info). Early Christians were very skilled at co-opting Roman and Greek traditions, slogans, and titles for the sake of the Christian faith. Christmas is no exception.
2) My thoughts about this, as it relates to American culture, are not about individuals - it's about culture. Some folks who responded seemed personally offended and seemed to think I was trying to take away their Christmas joy. If people want to sing Christmas carols all year long, put up their decorations before Halloween, wear a Santa hat during the week of the 4th - go ahead, have a blast! My concern is with the culture of consumerism and consumption that has grown up around Christmas. For our culture, Christmas is not about Jesus, or even family. It's about money, commerce, profit. And Christmas makes tons of money. So, is it any accident that, in the midst of a bad economy, the Christmas push is getting cranked up a good bit earlier this year? From a business standpoint, this makes perfect sense. People in this country love Christmas, so if they see Christmas stuff on the shelves, they'll buy it. Why wouldn't stores stock it, if it sells?
3) As a Christian, my responsibility is to serve Jesus Christ year-round. Since I've been a pastor, I've become more aware of the movement of the Christian year and the importance of marking the seasons. The season of Advent is about waiting, preparation, quiet. If you only paid attention to Advent and not to the Christmas blitz, Advent feels a little bit like holding your breath. And when Christmas does come, you've prepared, you've prayed, you've studied Isaiah, heard about John the Baptist, Elizabeth, Zechariah. And the Christmas celebration is powerful when approached this way. However, if you go all in for the blitz starting on November 1st (which is when I first saw Christmas stuff on the shelves at CVS), by the time Christmas gets here, you haven't waited and likely you're exhausted and you just want it to be over with. Historically, Christmas began on the 25th and continued for 12 days until Epiphany (hence the "Twelve Days of Christmas"). Advent was about making preparations, spiritually and otherwise, for the celebration of the Christmas season.
4) Additionally, Christmas is not even the most important Christian holiday. That would be Easter. Of course, historically, Christmas is considered the second most important "high holy day", but Easter is the major, big deal, huge Christian celebration. Why? The resurrection. Why, then, is our cultural celebration of Christmas more prominent and wide-spread than Easter? Well (at least the way I see it), Christmas is a more easily accepted message in our culture. Christmas has transcended the original meaning of the holiday (which is the incarnation, God coming to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth) and in our culture is more associated with spending time with family, exchanging presents, decorating the house/yard, and getting into the "Christmas spirit".
5) And what do we mean by the "Christmas spirit"? Here's my take - close to Christmas time, many people make the effort to be a little nicer, to smile a little more, to try and think about others a little more, especially those who are going without. That last one has been more noticeable in recent years and I consider it a wonderful development. However, if you're a Christian, shouldn't you be this way all the time (or at least try)? There's a name for this "spirit"…joy! And that shouldn't just be the "Christmas spirit" - it's a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we need to take some of that joy and kindness and attention to the less fortunate into January and February and beyond. Maybe one goal of observing Advent and the themes of hope, peace, joy, and love is to teach us to incorporate them into our lives year-round. What a concept!
May the peace of Jesus Christ be upon and within all of you!
Disclaimer: I love Christmas. It is my favorite time of the year. I love the decorations, time with family, giving and receiving gifts, the food, the movies (especially It's a Wonderful Life), the music, the peacefulness of Christmas Eve - all of it!
1) We should know the roots of our Christmas celebration. The holiday of Christmas was not celebrated until late in the 4th century (the year 336 is the earliest mention of the date of Dec. 25th that we have. The early Church Father Clement of Alexandria suggested May 20th as the date for Christ's birth). The Christian celebration of Christ's birth replaced the earlier Roman celebration of Saturnalia, which was marked by feasts, gatherings, and goofy parties. The typical greeting on Saturnalia was "Lo, Saturnalia!" which was pronounced "e-o", a Latin interjection (kind of like "hey!") and was related to "Ho!" And it's a small step to "Ho Ho Ho!" (Just an interesting little bit of info). Early Christians were very skilled at co-opting Roman and Greek traditions, slogans, and titles for the sake of the Christian faith. Christmas is no exception.
2) My thoughts about this, as it relates to American culture, are not about individuals - it's about culture. Some folks who responded seemed personally offended and seemed to think I was trying to take away their Christmas joy. If people want to sing Christmas carols all year long, put up their decorations before Halloween, wear a Santa hat during the week of the 4th - go ahead, have a blast! My concern is with the culture of consumerism and consumption that has grown up around Christmas. For our culture, Christmas is not about Jesus, or even family. It's about money, commerce, profit. And Christmas makes tons of money. So, is it any accident that, in the midst of a bad economy, the Christmas push is getting cranked up a good bit earlier this year? From a business standpoint, this makes perfect sense. People in this country love Christmas, so if they see Christmas stuff on the shelves, they'll buy it. Why wouldn't stores stock it, if it sells?
3) As a Christian, my responsibility is to serve Jesus Christ year-round. Since I've been a pastor, I've become more aware of the movement of the Christian year and the importance of marking the seasons. The season of Advent is about waiting, preparation, quiet. If you only paid attention to Advent and not to the Christmas blitz, Advent feels a little bit like holding your breath. And when Christmas does come, you've prepared, you've prayed, you've studied Isaiah, heard about John the Baptist, Elizabeth, Zechariah. And the Christmas celebration is powerful when approached this way. However, if you go all in for the blitz starting on November 1st (which is when I first saw Christmas stuff on the shelves at CVS), by the time Christmas gets here, you haven't waited and likely you're exhausted and you just want it to be over with. Historically, Christmas began on the 25th and continued for 12 days until Epiphany (hence the "Twelve Days of Christmas"). Advent was about making preparations, spiritually and otherwise, for the celebration of the Christmas season.
4) Additionally, Christmas is not even the most important Christian holiday. That would be Easter. Of course, historically, Christmas is considered the second most important "high holy day", but Easter is the major, big deal, huge Christian celebration. Why? The resurrection. Why, then, is our cultural celebration of Christmas more prominent and wide-spread than Easter? Well (at least the way I see it), Christmas is a more easily accepted message in our culture. Christmas has transcended the original meaning of the holiday (which is the incarnation, God coming to us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth) and in our culture is more associated with spending time with family, exchanging presents, decorating the house/yard, and getting into the "Christmas spirit".
5) And what do we mean by the "Christmas spirit"? Here's my take - close to Christmas time, many people make the effort to be a little nicer, to smile a little more, to try and think about others a little more, especially those who are going without. That last one has been more noticeable in recent years and I consider it a wonderful development. However, if you're a Christian, shouldn't you be this way all the time (or at least try)? There's a name for this "spirit"…joy! And that shouldn't just be the "Christmas spirit" - it's a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we need to take some of that joy and kindness and attention to the less fortunate into January and February and beyond. Maybe one goal of observing Advent and the themes of hope, peace, joy, and love is to teach us to incorporate them into our lives year-round. What a concept!
May the peace of Jesus Christ be upon and within all of you!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Revelation Chapter One
This is my fourth time teaching this book and each time I've taught it, it almost seems to be a different book. I am enjoying this go-round perhaps more than I did last time. I think my growing familiarity with the outline and tone of the book is allowing me to reflect a little more on the theological themes of the book and on the ways in which Revelation might provide some spiritual insight. I'm also getting a much better sense of the rhythm of the text, which is making the reading even more enjoyable.
The book opens a typical greeting, but it is pretty noticeable that John includes the phrase "who is and who was and who is to come" twice in the first 8 verses. This is not accidental. This is a direct reference to Exodus 3:13-14 - "But Moses said to God, 'If I come to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' what shall I say to them?' God said to Moses, " I AM WHO I AM." In Hebrew, the Name God gives is 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh. 'ehyeh means "I am, I was, I will be", basically. Asher means "who, that, which, what", basically. So, God is basically saying here "I am Who I was Who I will be" - that's a reflection of the infinity of God and the consistency of God's nature and identity. In Revelation, it's also about scope - God is greater than anything on this earth. In Rev. 1:8, God says that God is the "Alpha and the Omega". God is all-encompassing.
In the context of Revelation, this is a statement about political power as well. If God is indeed the Lord and Christians proclaim God as such, this is full frontal assault on the power that Caesar claims for himself. This is a persistent theme in Revelation - to whom or to what do we owe our allegiance? This might raise some, if not controversial, then uncomfortable questions for those of us who are immersed in American culture. Revelation pushes to ask questions about how power is realized and wielded in our own culture and country. If an apocalypse is a pulling back of the curtain to reveal the realities behind the appearances, what systems of power are operating behind the curtain in American culture? I'm not talking about goofy conspiracy theories - I'm more interested in those "rulers", "authorities", and "powers" that Paul talks about in Ephesians 6:12. How does American consumerism and materialism square with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? How does traditional American militarism fit in with the proclamation of Jesus Christ? Is our culture of celebrity worship and "humans as commodities" congruent with Christian discipleship? These are uncomfortable questions and there are literally dozens more questions that we could be asking (and will ask over the course of the book).
A major point of Revelation, taken as a whole, is that God's vision for humanity and for human flourishing is vastly different from the visions of human life offered by the powers of this world. Right from the start, the book makes the claim that it is in fact God Who is in charge of creation. As you move through the book, however, the destructive power of sin and death is plainly evident. This glimpse behind the curtain of life in our world shows the holiness and loving kindness of God and the complete brutality and deadliness of sin, both personal sin and systemic sin.
Again, these are just scattered thoughts about what I'm reading...more to come later...
The book opens a typical greeting, but it is pretty noticeable that John includes the phrase "who is and who was and who is to come" twice in the first 8 verses. This is not accidental. This is a direct reference to Exodus 3:13-14 - "But Moses said to God, 'If I come to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' what shall I say to them?' God said to Moses, " I AM WHO I AM." In Hebrew, the Name God gives is 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh. 'ehyeh means "I am, I was, I will be", basically. Asher means "who, that, which, what", basically. So, God is basically saying here "I am Who I was Who I will be" - that's a reflection of the infinity of God and the consistency of God's nature and identity. In Revelation, it's also about scope - God is greater than anything on this earth. In Rev. 1:8, God says that God is the "Alpha and the Omega". God is all-encompassing.
In the context of Revelation, this is a statement about political power as well. If God is indeed the Lord and Christians proclaim God as such, this is full frontal assault on the power that Caesar claims for himself. This is a persistent theme in Revelation - to whom or to what do we owe our allegiance? This might raise some, if not controversial, then uncomfortable questions for those of us who are immersed in American culture. Revelation pushes to ask questions about how power is realized and wielded in our own culture and country. If an apocalypse is a pulling back of the curtain to reveal the realities behind the appearances, what systems of power are operating behind the curtain in American culture? I'm not talking about goofy conspiracy theories - I'm more interested in those "rulers", "authorities", and "powers" that Paul talks about in Ephesians 6:12. How does American consumerism and materialism square with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? How does traditional American militarism fit in with the proclamation of Jesus Christ? Is our culture of celebrity worship and "humans as commodities" congruent with Christian discipleship? These are uncomfortable questions and there are literally dozens more questions that we could be asking (and will ask over the course of the book).
A major point of Revelation, taken as a whole, is that God's vision for humanity and for human flourishing is vastly different from the visions of human life offered by the powers of this world. Right from the start, the book makes the claim that it is in fact God Who is in charge of creation. As you move through the book, however, the destructive power of sin and death is plainly evident. This glimpse behind the curtain of life in our world shows the holiness and loving kindness of God and the complete brutality and deadliness of sin, both personal sin and systemic sin.
Again, these are just scattered thoughts about what I'm reading...more to come later...
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Some Scattered Thoughts About Satan/The Devil
As a new youth pastor, fresh out of seminary, one of my favorite things to do was to lob "grenades" at my high school youth during my lessons. These were questions that were specifically designed to shake them up, unsettle them, make them think hard about their faith. Sometimes, this was a good idea and had the intended effect. In retrospect, I think that early on, I did this too often and it became more of a gimmick than anything. As I grew as a teacher and speaker, I no longer felt the need to lob those rhetorical grenades in the middle of a Sunday School lesson.
One of the times I did this and probably shouldn't have was in reference to Satan. At that point in my faith journey, I was not very keen on the idea of Satan/the Devil/Lucifer, what have you. I thought (and still think) that the Satan that most Christians picture is more a creation of Milton and Dante than of Scripture. Anyways, I was trying to get my youth to think outside the box, or whatever, and I said, "Do you have to believe in Satan in order to believe in the Gospel?" For a theologian or Biblical scholar, that's a fair question and one worth discussing. For high schoolers, probably not very helpful. However, this did start a good debate about the devil and "his" role in our lives (or lack thereof, according to some). Later that week, I was talking to my senior pastor about the question and subsequent conversation and he said (and this has stuck with me ever since): "If believing in a devil keeps those kids from using drugs or from getting in the back seat of a parked car, I'll talk about the devil as much as I need to." What I learned from that is that my theological ponderings/questions are not necessarily helpful for the practice of ministry. I still believe that Christians, especially young Christians, need to learn how to think and read critically (especially Scripture), but this doesn't mean pulling the rug out from under them.
I am still grappling with the nature and existence of Satan. Scripture speaks clearly and regularly about Satan, though the difference in presentation between, say, Job and the New Testament is pretty stark. Here are some things that I'm currently thinking in this regard:
1) Satan is real.
A story found in J. Louis Martyn's book "Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul" is helpful here. Here's what he says:
"Here we can be reminded of the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner, lecturing at Wellesley College not long after the Second World War, not long, that is, after the horrors of the Holocaust. In the course of his lecture, Brunner referred several times to the Devil. One was not surprised, then, that in the question period a student asked him why he, a modern human being, should have mentioned the Devil. It was a polite question, behind which lay the recognition that we live in the scientific age. Brunner's response: 'I have referred to the Devil for two reasons. First, I find that he plays a very important role in Scripture. And second, I have seen him.'"
I'm not sure I can add anything to this, except to say that I've too often played the role of "polite, sincere, modern human being", quietly smirking at the supernatural aspects of faith while being completely confident of my own intellectual understanding and ability. Thank God I'm growing out of that smug, arrogant confidence in my own understanding.
2) The Devil may be real, but the Devil is not a cartoon character.
I do believe in non-embodied, non-human, spiritual 'forces' that are in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These might be ideas, philosophies, addictions, certain 'attitudes' that seem to take over a person (lust, rage, despair). In some cases, I would call these things demonic or satanic, especially when it comes to abusive rage or life-depleting addictions. In Job, what we translate in English as Satan is in Hebrew known as ha-satan, which is a title and not necessarily a name. This can be roughly translated as "The Accuser". Just from that little piece of interpretative information, my pastoral insight might be that we all carry around with us a satanic mentality of accusation, about ourselves or about other people. Many of us constantly berate ourselves for being stupid, ugly, worthless, etc. This is an accusatory, even satanic way of thinking about ourselves. And we do this to other people, ascribing motives to people because we don't like them ("why does so-and-so hate me? They're trying to ruin my life!") This, too, is a satanic way of thinking, at least in terms of how the ha-satan is presented in Job.
In the New Testament, the Devil (in the Greek, "diabolos", which means "slanderer"; this is consistent with the ha-satan found in Job) is presented as a tempter, a liar, a killer, and an enemy of God. However, and this is especially true of Paul, Satan is not the primary enemy. The enemies of God are sin and death. Additionally, in terms of the Bible, Satan is not the primary enemy at all. That would be idolatry. The worship of false gods is prominent throughout Scripture. But that doesn't translate into cartoonish caricatures as easily as the Devil.
3) The Devil is defeated.
A few years ago, I figured out why I don't give much thought to the devil and what is known as the "demonic" - if they exist (and I'm increasingly convinced they do, though again not as personifications), they are already defeated. I have nothing to fear from them. The enemies of God and of human flourishing - sin, death, Satan, demonic forces - have been defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can live my life free from fear and free to serve Jesus Christ. James says it best: "Resist the devil and he will flee." Paul also says: "Make no room for the devil." So, I don't constantly feel threatened by spiritual attack nor do I see the purposes of Satan around every corner. They are defeated and God is at work reconciling the world to Himself through Jesus.
4) Satan is not a competing god.
Part of what the problem is that we are, generally speaking, very dualistic in our thinking. This makes the world easy to define: good/bad; light/dark; God/devil. Many Christians tend to think that Satan is simply the "evil version" of God. This is not the case. If anything competes for that position as "rival", it would be the various idols that we worship in our culture: fame, self, money, comfort, etc. And the truth of the matter is, God has no competition. The Lord reigns. That is my proclamation and I fear no threat from any spiritual force. Now, with that said, we still must contend with the spirits of conflict, despair, apathy, anger, addiction - all of these may properly be called satanic, in the sense that they will continue to accuse. The "spirit" of satan is the spirit of accusation and slander. The accusations are many and they do lead Christians into difficulty and sin. "God is not real." "You are not loved." "You are not worthy." "This person or that person is not worthy."
A real temptation here is to assume that anything that we disagree with indicates the presence of satan. For example, if I push my congregation to examine where their allegiance to their country might be at odds with their faith in Jesus, they may not like that. But that doesn't make it satanic. Or if I tell my congregation about the deficiencies I see in our life together as the church, I might be accused of introducing conflict, of bringing dissent into the church, which might be construed as "satanic". Not every word of challenge or conviction is satanic. Any word that denigrates your worth as a child of God is satanic. Any word that seeks to diminish the love of Jesus and the power of God for salvation is satanic, in the sense of being opposed to the will of God.
Here's where I'm winding up nowadays. In Mark 8, Jesus tells the disciples that he must suffer and be killed. Peter pulls Jesus aside and tells him that this can't happen. Jesus says, "get behind me satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." When Jesus calls Peter "satan", I don't think that Jesus actually means that Peter is the Devil or that he is possessed. I believe that what Jesus is saying is that Peter is playing the role of "opposer", standing in the way of Jesus fulfilling God's will for his life. When we stand in the way of God's will, we too are being satanic. When Jesus is calling us to live a certain way or to do a certain thing and we oppose Him, we too, are being satanic. When we accuse our neighbors of being less than beloved children of God, we are being satanic.
May God give us the gift of discernment and the gift of faith as we seek to live in line with His will
Grace and Peace to all of you!
One of the times I did this and probably shouldn't have was in reference to Satan. At that point in my faith journey, I was not very keen on the idea of Satan/the Devil/Lucifer, what have you. I thought (and still think) that the Satan that most Christians picture is more a creation of Milton and Dante than of Scripture. Anyways, I was trying to get my youth to think outside the box, or whatever, and I said, "Do you have to believe in Satan in order to believe in the Gospel?" For a theologian or Biblical scholar, that's a fair question and one worth discussing. For high schoolers, probably not very helpful. However, this did start a good debate about the devil and "his" role in our lives (or lack thereof, according to some). Later that week, I was talking to my senior pastor about the question and subsequent conversation and he said (and this has stuck with me ever since): "If believing in a devil keeps those kids from using drugs or from getting in the back seat of a parked car, I'll talk about the devil as much as I need to." What I learned from that is that my theological ponderings/questions are not necessarily helpful for the practice of ministry. I still believe that Christians, especially young Christians, need to learn how to think and read critically (especially Scripture), but this doesn't mean pulling the rug out from under them.
I am still grappling with the nature and existence of Satan. Scripture speaks clearly and regularly about Satan, though the difference in presentation between, say, Job and the New Testament is pretty stark. Here are some things that I'm currently thinking in this regard:
1) Satan is real.
A story found in J. Louis Martyn's book "Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul" is helpful here. Here's what he says:
"Here we can be reminded of the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner, lecturing at Wellesley College not long after the Second World War, not long, that is, after the horrors of the Holocaust. In the course of his lecture, Brunner referred several times to the Devil. One was not surprised, then, that in the question period a student asked him why he, a modern human being, should have mentioned the Devil. It was a polite question, behind which lay the recognition that we live in the scientific age. Brunner's response: 'I have referred to the Devil for two reasons. First, I find that he plays a very important role in Scripture. And second, I have seen him.'"
I'm not sure I can add anything to this, except to say that I've too often played the role of "polite, sincere, modern human being", quietly smirking at the supernatural aspects of faith while being completely confident of my own intellectual understanding and ability. Thank God I'm growing out of that smug, arrogant confidence in my own understanding.
2) The Devil may be real, but the Devil is not a cartoon character.
I do believe in non-embodied, non-human, spiritual 'forces' that are in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These might be ideas, philosophies, addictions, certain 'attitudes' that seem to take over a person (lust, rage, despair). In some cases, I would call these things demonic or satanic, especially when it comes to abusive rage or life-depleting addictions. In Job, what we translate in English as Satan is in Hebrew known as ha-satan, which is a title and not necessarily a name. This can be roughly translated as "The Accuser". Just from that little piece of interpretative information, my pastoral insight might be that we all carry around with us a satanic mentality of accusation, about ourselves or about other people. Many of us constantly berate ourselves for being stupid, ugly, worthless, etc. This is an accusatory, even satanic way of thinking about ourselves. And we do this to other people, ascribing motives to people because we don't like them ("why does so-and-so hate me? They're trying to ruin my life!") This, too, is a satanic way of thinking, at least in terms of how the ha-satan is presented in Job.
In the New Testament, the Devil (in the Greek, "diabolos", which means "slanderer"; this is consistent with the ha-satan found in Job) is presented as a tempter, a liar, a killer, and an enemy of God. However, and this is especially true of Paul, Satan is not the primary enemy. The enemies of God are sin and death. Additionally, in terms of the Bible, Satan is not the primary enemy at all. That would be idolatry. The worship of false gods is prominent throughout Scripture. But that doesn't translate into cartoonish caricatures as easily as the Devil.
3) The Devil is defeated.
A few years ago, I figured out why I don't give much thought to the devil and what is known as the "demonic" - if they exist (and I'm increasingly convinced they do, though again not as personifications), they are already defeated. I have nothing to fear from them. The enemies of God and of human flourishing - sin, death, Satan, demonic forces - have been defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can live my life free from fear and free to serve Jesus Christ. James says it best: "Resist the devil and he will flee." Paul also says: "Make no room for the devil." So, I don't constantly feel threatened by spiritual attack nor do I see the purposes of Satan around every corner. They are defeated and God is at work reconciling the world to Himself through Jesus.
4) Satan is not a competing god.
Part of what the problem is that we are, generally speaking, very dualistic in our thinking. This makes the world easy to define: good/bad; light/dark; God/devil. Many Christians tend to think that Satan is simply the "evil version" of God. This is not the case. If anything competes for that position as "rival", it would be the various idols that we worship in our culture: fame, self, money, comfort, etc. And the truth of the matter is, God has no competition. The Lord reigns. That is my proclamation and I fear no threat from any spiritual force. Now, with that said, we still must contend with the spirits of conflict, despair, apathy, anger, addiction - all of these may properly be called satanic, in the sense that they will continue to accuse. The "spirit" of satan is the spirit of accusation and slander. The accusations are many and they do lead Christians into difficulty and sin. "God is not real." "You are not loved." "You are not worthy." "This person or that person is not worthy."
A real temptation here is to assume that anything that we disagree with indicates the presence of satan. For example, if I push my congregation to examine where their allegiance to their country might be at odds with their faith in Jesus, they may not like that. But that doesn't make it satanic. Or if I tell my congregation about the deficiencies I see in our life together as the church, I might be accused of introducing conflict, of bringing dissent into the church, which might be construed as "satanic". Not every word of challenge or conviction is satanic. Any word that denigrates your worth as a child of God is satanic. Any word that seeks to diminish the love of Jesus and the power of God for salvation is satanic, in the sense of being opposed to the will of God.
Here's where I'm winding up nowadays. In Mark 8, Jesus tells the disciples that he must suffer and be killed. Peter pulls Jesus aside and tells him that this can't happen. Jesus says, "get behind me satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." When Jesus calls Peter "satan", I don't think that Jesus actually means that Peter is the Devil or that he is possessed. I believe that what Jesus is saying is that Peter is playing the role of "opposer", standing in the way of Jesus fulfilling God's will for his life. When we stand in the way of God's will, we too are being satanic. When Jesus is calling us to live a certain way or to do a certain thing and we oppose Him, we too, are being satanic. When we accuse our neighbors of being less than beloved children of God, we are being satanic.
May God give us the gift of discernment and the gift of faith as we seek to live in line with His will
Grace and Peace to all of you!
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Revelation Introduction, part III
Haven't blogged in a few weeks, for several good reasons. My son had what turned out to be minor surgery a couple of weeks ago - he's fine and basically fully recovered. I've also had a lot of stuff going on at the church, so my posting has been non-existent. I hope that I'll be able to get back on track. Anyways, I want to continue my look at Revelation as I teach through the book over the next few months. I've been thinking about how I want to engage Revelation on the blog as I'm teaching and I don't think I want it to simply be a repetition of what I teach. I'm think that on the blog, I'll write about my own reflections on the text in terms of theology and in terms of what the book might have to teach us related to spiritual growth.
I have given some thought about how I might discuss the interpretation of Revelation as it relates to the recent Left Behind phenomenon. This series represents the system of interpretation known as Darbyism, named after John Nelson Darby. Darby was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the church, joined the Plymouth Brethren and spent years devising the "system" that would come to be known as premillenial Dispensationalism. This is the system spelled out in narrative form in the Left Behind series, and it includes a belief in the Rapture, a 7 year period of tribulation, the Antichrist, and a final climactic battle between the Antichrist and Christ. There are a great number of details in this system that I'm not going to elaborate on - I don't have the time or interest in doing so. Suffice it to say that (a) I'm not a Darbyist; (b) I don't subscribe to a belief in the Rapture; (c) I have a lot of trouble with the interpretative methods used by the Darbyists; and (d) I have even more trouble with the theological exclusivism of many Darbyists ("If you don't believe in the Rapture, then you're not a Christian.") Maybe at some point I'll spell out in detail my thoughts about this, just not presently. I know that I said that this posting would be about Darbyism, but I'm not sure that I'm up to it at the moment...
So, some might ask, how does one interpret Revelation, or think about the "end times" apart from Darbyism? Here are some thoughts about that:
1) I do believe that Jesus Christ will return. Every time we Methodists recite the communion liturgy, we say: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." I believe this. And not in some fuzzy, ambiguous, "Jesus has come back in all of our hearts" kind of way. I think he's coming back. And I'm going to listen to Jesus on this - one, we don't know when; two, we will be surprised.
2) The return of Jesus Christ in no way, shape, or form diminishes my responsibilities and obligations as a Christian person in the present. Again, I'm going to listen to Jesus and what he says in Matthew 6:34 - "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today." I also like what Luther had to say about the return of Christ. When asked how he would respond if Christ was returning tomorrow, Luther said (basically) "I would plant a tree today." (Lutheran friends, correct me if I'm wrong). Even if he didn't say it, I like the sentiment. We are stewards of God's good gift today and what tomorrow holds does not change that.
3) Revelation is not a road map for the future - it has happened, it is happening, and it will happen. Revelation, in my understanding, is about what happens when the "curtain is pulled back" and we see the conflict between God/life and sin/death. The empires/powers of this world must ultimately fall under God's judgment, but they're taking a lot of people down with them. This is the way of human power and sin.
4) John of Patmos was writing, in large part, about the power of Roman Empire (and about the power behind the power). An interesting question that I've been grappling with the last 2 times that I have taught Revelation is "if John were writing this letter today, who would the Beast be?"
5) Revelation is ultimately inspiring book. If you read and study the book with patience and with one eye on the big picture, it can be immensely helpful in regards to discipleship. Far too many Christians view the book as something to be feared.
Later this week, I'll write my thoughts about chapter 1…peace and grace to you all!
I have given some thought about how I might discuss the interpretation of Revelation as it relates to the recent Left Behind phenomenon. This series represents the system of interpretation known as Darbyism, named after John Nelson Darby. Darby was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the church, joined the Plymouth Brethren and spent years devising the "system" that would come to be known as premillenial Dispensationalism. This is the system spelled out in narrative form in the Left Behind series, and it includes a belief in the Rapture, a 7 year period of tribulation, the Antichrist, and a final climactic battle between the Antichrist and Christ. There are a great number of details in this system that I'm not going to elaborate on - I don't have the time or interest in doing so. Suffice it to say that (a) I'm not a Darbyist; (b) I don't subscribe to a belief in the Rapture; (c) I have a lot of trouble with the interpretative methods used by the Darbyists; and (d) I have even more trouble with the theological exclusivism of many Darbyists ("If you don't believe in the Rapture, then you're not a Christian.") Maybe at some point I'll spell out in detail my thoughts about this, just not presently. I know that I said that this posting would be about Darbyism, but I'm not sure that I'm up to it at the moment...
So, some might ask, how does one interpret Revelation, or think about the "end times" apart from Darbyism? Here are some thoughts about that:
1) I do believe that Jesus Christ will return. Every time we Methodists recite the communion liturgy, we say: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." I believe this. And not in some fuzzy, ambiguous, "Jesus has come back in all of our hearts" kind of way. I think he's coming back. And I'm going to listen to Jesus on this - one, we don't know when; two, we will be surprised.
2) The return of Jesus Christ in no way, shape, or form diminishes my responsibilities and obligations as a Christian person in the present. Again, I'm going to listen to Jesus and what he says in Matthew 6:34 - "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today." I also like what Luther had to say about the return of Christ. When asked how he would respond if Christ was returning tomorrow, Luther said (basically) "I would plant a tree today." (Lutheran friends, correct me if I'm wrong). Even if he didn't say it, I like the sentiment. We are stewards of God's good gift today and what tomorrow holds does not change that.
3) Revelation is not a road map for the future - it has happened, it is happening, and it will happen. Revelation, in my understanding, is about what happens when the "curtain is pulled back" and we see the conflict between God/life and sin/death. The empires/powers of this world must ultimately fall under God's judgment, but they're taking a lot of people down with them. This is the way of human power and sin.
4) John of Patmos was writing, in large part, about the power of Roman Empire (and about the power behind the power). An interesting question that I've been grappling with the last 2 times that I have taught Revelation is "if John were writing this letter today, who would the Beast be?"
5) Revelation is ultimately inspiring book. If you read and study the book with patience and with one eye on the big picture, it can be immensely helpful in regards to discipleship. Far too many Christians view the book as something to be feared.
Later this week, I'll write my thoughts about chapter 1…peace and grace to you all!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Revelation Introduction, part 2 - Millennialism
Millennialism – three different understandings of what John is talking about in Revelation 20
1) Pre-Millennialism – this is an interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 that posits that the Parousia (return of Jesus to earth) will occur before a literal thousand year reign of Christ. This is the position of those in the Darbyist tradition (I'll explain Darbyism a little later), which includes the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the battle of Armageddon and that all of these things will happen before the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Here's how this plays out in the world: there is no hope for humanity as it relates to moral improvement - the world is not going to get better (in fact, John Nelson Darby believed that the established Church was a failure and was complicit in the moral degradation of humanity); concern for the environment is pointless - if God is simply going to destroy the world in the "end times", there is no need for caring for the earth. That may be a slightly unfair caricature, but if you truly believe that the world is fundamentally evil and that God will soon destroy it, where is the motivation for the care of the earth? For the pre-mil Darbyist, the Christian's chief concerns are: (1) not being left behind when the Rapture comes; (2) preaching salvation to the lost before it's too late; (3) leaving this evil world behind; (4) discerning the "signs of the times" - meaning, understanding how current events might be interpreted through the lens of "Biblical prophecy". There are all kinds of problems with this as it relates to appropriate Biblical interpretation and how we understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy.
2) Post-Millennialism – this is an interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 that posits that the Parousia and the last judgment will occur after a thousand year reign of Christ through the Church. Post-mils believe in a gradual movement towards social holiness/perfection. There are many post-mils that teach that Christians must rise to the heights of political and social power to ensure progress towards the millennium. How this plays out in the real world: from a conservative point of view, post-millennianalism is most clearly expressed in what is called "Dominionism", which holds that the job of the Church is to establish theocratic systems of government that might precipitate the millennium; from a more 'liberal' point of view, we find an expression of post-mil thought in what has been termed the "Social Gospel" and the idea that the Church might bring about the Kingdom of God through social action. These are the most blatant examples - expressions of post-millennialism are not necessarily as stark as choosing between Dominionism and the Social Gospel. However, in both cases, political involvement by Christians for the purpose of making real the reign of Christ and the bringing about of His Kingdom on earth by his followers is assumed. It should be noted that this has been the predominant position of Christians for much of the history of the faith. It should also be noted that post-mils don't believe in the Darbyist system, which includes the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Antichrist, etc. A good summation by Stanley Grenz: "…postmillennialists view the millennium as a long era of universal peace and righteousness that comes as the result of the preaching of the gospel, the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals and the Christianization of the world."
3) Amillennialism – this is an interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 that posits that there will be no literal 1,000 year reign of Christ. Like the post-mil position, a-mils believe that there will be no rapture, no tribulation, no Armageddon, but unlike post-mils, a-mils believe that there will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ. The millennium spoken of in Revelation 20 is symbolic of Christ's reign on earth (or his advancing Kingdom) in the Church. The position here is that Jesus is presently reigning at the right hand of God and is with the church as he said at his ascension. The return of Christ to earth will be sudden and unexpected. The return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment will be (basically) a singular event. How this plays out in the real world: many in the a-mil camp (or in denominations that are predominantly a-mil) are not as aware of or knowledgeable about eschatology - this perhaps led many Christians in historically amillennial traditions to get caught up (as it were) in the Left Behind phenomenon a few years back. Many Christians in amillennial traditions don't hear much teaching about eschatology or those Scriptures that are eschatological in focus (the 2nd half of Daniel, the Olivet discourse in Matthew, Revelation, etc.).
Several things should be noted:
- These are merely thumbnail sketches of some very complex theological systems of thought. I have most likely not done justice to the depth of thought that has gone into these "systems". Quite frankly, I distrust any "system" that claims to have a full understanding or accounting of God's purposes for the world and for the future of the world. I also feel that endless debates or fixed certainty about what God will do or must do distracts from the church's call to be at work in the world on behalf of the poor, the suffering, and the lost.
- Many Christians are probably a mix of the above, in some ways. I think it's perfectly fine to be a Christian and not be able to know precisely how you interpret Revelation 20:4-6. I'm not swayed by passionate end-times obsessives who (a) demand that Christians know exactly what they believe about this topic, and (b) further demand that Christians agree with their positions.
For the record, I'm an amillennialist. I figure that God's in control and He knows what He's doing. Besides, Jesus tells me not to worry about tomorrow - today's got enough worries of its own.
1) Pre-Millennialism – this is an interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 that posits that the Parousia (return of Jesus to earth) will occur before a literal thousand year reign of Christ. This is the position of those in the Darbyist tradition (I'll explain Darbyism a little later), which includes the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the battle of Armageddon and that all of these things will happen before the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Here's how this plays out in the world: there is no hope for humanity as it relates to moral improvement - the world is not going to get better (in fact, John Nelson Darby believed that the established Church was a failure and was complicit in the moral degradation of humanity); concern for the environment is pointless - if God is simply going to destroy the world in the "end times", there is no need for caring for the earth. That may be a slightly unfair caricature, but if you truly believe that the world is fundamentally evil and that God will soon destroy it, where is the motivation for the care of the earth? For the pre-mil Darbyist, the Christian's chief concerns are: (1) not being left behind when the Rapture comes; (2) preaching salvation to the lost before it's too late; (3) leaving this evil world behind; (4) discerning the "signs of the times" - meaning, understanding how current events might be interpreted through the lens of "Biblical prophecy". There are all kinds of problems with this as it relates to appropriate Biblical interpretation and how we understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy.
2) Post-Millennialism – this is an interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 that posits that the Parousia and the last judgment will occur after a thousand year reign of Christ through the Church. Post-mils believe in a gradual movement towards social holiness/perfection. There are many post-mils that teach that Christians must rise to the heights of political and social power to ensure progress towards the millennium. How this plays out in the real world: from a conservative point of view, post-millennianalism is most clearly expressed in what is called "Dominionism", which holds that the job of the Church is to establish theocratic systems of government that might precipitate the millennium; from a more 'liberal' point of view, we find an expression of post-mil thought in what has been termed the "Social Gospel" and the idea that the Church might bring about the Kingdom of God through social action. These are the most blatant examples - expressions of post-millennialism are not necessarily as stark as choosing between Dominionism and the Social Gospel. However, in both cases, political involvement by Christians for the purpose of making real the reign of Christ and the bringing about of His Kingdom on earth by his followers is assumed. It should be noted that this has been the predominant position of Christians for much of the history of the faith. It should also be noted that post-mils don't believe in the Darbyist system, which includes the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Antichrist, etc. A good summation by Stanley Grenz: "…postmillennialists view the millennium as a long era of universal peace and righteousness that comes as the result of the preaching of the gospel, the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals and the Christianization of the world."
3) Amillennialism – this is an interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 that posits that there will be no literal 1,000 year reign of Christ. Like the post-mil position, a-mils believe that there will be no rapture, no tribulation, no Armageddon, but unlike post-mils, a-mils believe that there will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ. The millennium spoken of in Revelation 20 is symbolic of Christ's reign on earth (or his advancing Kingdom) in the Church. The position here is that Jesus is presently reigning at the right hand of God and is with the church as he said at his ascension. The return of Christ to earth will be sudden and unexpected. The return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment will be (basically) a singular event. How this plays out in the real world: many in the a-mil camp (or in denominations that are predominantly a-mil) are not as aware of or knowledgeable about eschatology - this perhaps led many Christians in historically amillennial traditions to get caught up (as it were) in the Left Behind phenomenon a few years back. Many Christians in amillennial traditions don't hear much teaching about eschatology or those Scriptures that are eschatological in focus (the 2nd half of Daniel, the Olivet discourse in Matthew, Revelation, etc.).
Several things should be noted:
- These are merely thumbnail sketches of some very complex theological systems of thought. I have most likely not done justice to the depth of thought that has gone into these "systems". Quite frankly, I distrust any "system" that claims to have a full understanding or accounting of God's purposes for the world and for the future of the world. I also feel that endless debates or fixed certainty about what God will do or must do distracts from the church's call to be at work in the world on behalf of the poor, the suffering, and the lost.
- Many Christians are probably a mix of the above, in some ways. I think it's perfectly fine to be a Christian and not be able to know precisely how you interpret Revelation 20:4-6. I'm not swayed by passionate end-times obsessives who (a) demand that Christians know exactly what they believe about this topic, and (b) further demand that Christians agree with their positions.
For the record, I'm an amillennialist. I figure that God's in control and He knows what He's doing. Besides, Jesus tells me not to worry about tomorrow - today's got enough worries of its own.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Revelation part 1
Revelation is probably the most misunderstood and unfairly maligned book of the entire Bible. I've been surprised by the number of people who have said the following (or something like it): "I'm not sure about reading that book. It's really scary!" My experience of Revelation is completely different. When I was in high school, I was pretty obsessed with end-times theology and was completely convinced of the validity of premillenial dispensational rapture theology (we'll break that down over the next few weeks). I've come a LONG way since then, basically due to my understanding of (a) Methodism; (b) Scripture; and (c) theology as a discipline. Next week, I'll blog some about the system of end-times thought that has been dominant in the US (otherwise known as Darbyism) and why that is inappropriate on several levels. Today, I just want to give a little introduction. (By the way, our study of Revelation will be at Johnsontown UMC in Thomasville on Tuesday's at 7:00 - everybody's invited!)
First, some helpful Scriptures to establish a framework. Matthew 24:36 - “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”; and Matthew 6:34 - “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.” Jesus calls us to be present now, today. To work for God's Kingdom today, not to only look to the horizon for a way out. This theme will appear again.
As we move through this book, there are some important words that will recur. These terms also help to set up a framework of interpretation as we move ahead.
Eschatology – from the Gk. eschaton (means “the end”); the study of the end times
Parousia (Gk.) – the return of Jesus Christ to the earth; what we typically call the “Second Coming”
Apocalypse – does not mean destruction or cataclysm; an apocalypse is a revealing, kind of like pulling back the curtain to see what’s really going on in the world; think of the scene at the end of The Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls the curtain back revealing the little man posing as the Wizard - that's an apocalypse (some helpful advice: avoid any 'documentary' on the History Channel with the word "apocalypse" in it)
Millenialism – an interpretation of Revelation based on Revelation 20:1-6, there are three variants, which are related to the Parousia: pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and amillennialism - we'll explore these in more depth next week
Jewish Apocalypse – a specific genre of writing that developed in the 2-3 centuries before Christ (the second half of the book of Daniel is a good example)
Revelation is in the genre of Jewish apocalypse and is characterized by the following: (1) a visionary journey or experience by the author in which mysterious or hidden things are dramatically revealed; (2) scenes of judgment extending to all of creation; (3) a clear separation between good and evil, there really is no ambiguity in who's good and who's bad; (4) symbolism that borders on outlandish, especially in regards to human institutions of power (more on this later); and (5) the ultimate triumph of God and His people after great struggle and adversity (at least on the part of people, God never really struggles to triumph - He speaks and it is done).
The best place to see an example of Jewish apocalyptic writing in our Bible is Daniel 7 - it would be helpful for what follows if you would read it. Here's a link: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Daniel+7. There, Daniel sees a vision of 4 beasts, each beast more terrible and powerful than its predecessor. It is important to note that Daniel's dreams are interpreted (in 7:16 and following). This would indicate that Daniel's visions are not strictly literal. They describe symbolically the empires of the earth:
1. A lion with eagles’ wings = The Babylonian Empire
- Winged lions show up in a lot of Babylonian art
- The plucking of the wings and reduction of the beast to a human indicates the defeat of the Babylonians and the fact that, after all, they’re just people
2. A bear with tusks = The Median Empire
- “Raised up on one side” – ready to attack
- Three tusks represent a ravenous appetite for treasure
3. A leopard with four heads and wings = The Persian Empire
- The wings may be referring to the speed of Persia’s conquests under Cyrus
- The four heads can either refer to Persia’s dominance in all directions (North, East, South, West), or to the four Persian kings mention in Ezra 1:1 and 4:6-7
4. A scary beast with ten horns and iron teeth = The Seleucid (Greek) Empire under Alexander the Great
- The ten horns represent the ten kings of the Seleucids culminating in Antiochus IV Epiphanes (his name means “Antiochus the fourth, the god manifest”; this guy was pretty crazy, so his enemies called him “Epimanes” which means “the mad one”, as a play on his name). I love this guy's name by the way, it's right up there with Tiglath Pileser.
- The first Seleucid kings had coins decorated with horns, which are symbols of divine power – (these will come up again in a big way in Revelation)
Revelation as uses beasts to describe the empires of human construction. This is a typical element in Jewish apocalypse. With symbolism being so prevalent in Revelation, the question comes - how shall we go about interpreting these symbols? Unlike Daniel, John does not have an interpreter to go to figure how the meanings behind some of the fantastic images and visions that are shown to him. Personally, I kind of like relying on the Holy Spirit, prayer, and patience to help in understanding, but that's just me…but here's some hopefully helpful thoughts about interpreting the symbolism.
1. Understanding the historic and literary context of the book. Revelation, like all of Scripture, is a product of its time and place as well as being a timeless work inspired by God. The book of Revelation has a historical setting and is rooted in the experience of Christians under the heel of the Roman Empire. Knowing the history is immensely helpful as we seek to understand. A major part of this study will be increasing our understanding of the Roman Empire and the persecutions that Christians were facing.
2. Understanding the reasons behind John's use of symbolism
a. Again, John is writing in the tradition of Jewish apocalypse
b. Revelation, in one sense, is a scathing critique of the Roman empire (and can serve to be a scathing critique of any earthly power, including America)
c. At its core, Revelation is about God's triumph over sin and evil; one surprising aspect of the book is how prominent scenes of worship are
3. It is helpful to understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy; "prophecy" does not refer to telling the future, but to telling the future. The way prophecy "tells the future" is that the prophet says: "if you continue to do rotten awful Thing A, then rotten, awful Thing B will happen to you." For example, if a king mistreats poor people, then eventually his kingdom will fall. Or, if the people of God continue worship false idols, God's judgment will fall upon them. The prophet's job is to tell powerful people that their behavior and beliefs are rotten and that God will punish them if they persist. Prophets were not popular people. Revelation is a book of prophecy in the sense that it reveals to us the depravity of a broken humanity and the reality of God's judgment. Revelation is not a chronological ordering of events yet to come. More about that next week.
That's enough for now…I'll post more next week! The grace and peace of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be with you!
First, some helpful Scriptures to establish a framework. Matthew 24:36 - “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”; and Matthew 6:34 - “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.” Jesus calls us to be present now, today. To work for God's Kingdom today, not to only look to the horizon for a way out. This theme will appear again.
As we move through this book, there are some important words that will recur. These terms also help to set up a framework of interpretation as we move ahead.
Eschatology – from the Gk. eschaton (means “the end”); the study of the end times
Parousia (Gk.) – the return of Jesus Christ to the earth; what we typically call the “Second Coming”
Apocalypse – does not mean destruction or cataclysm; an apocalypse is a revealing, kind of like pulling back the curtain to see what’s really going on in the world; think of the scene at the end of The Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls the curtain back revealing the little man posing as the Wizard - that's an apocalypse (some helpful advice: avoid any 'documentary' on the History Channel with the word "apocalypse" in it)
Millenialism – an interpretation of Revelation based on Revelation 20:1-6, there are three variants, which are related to the Parousia: pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and amillennialism - we'll explore these in more depth next week
Jewish Apocalypse – a specific genre of writing that developed in the 2-3 centuries before Christ (the second half of the book of Daniel is a good example)
Revelation is in the genre of Jewish apocalypse and is characterized by the following: (1) a visionary journey or experience by the author in which mysterious or hidden things are dramatically revealed; (2) scenes of judgment extending to all of creation; (3) a clear separation between good and evil, there really is no ambiguity in who's good and who's bad; (4) symbolism that borders on outlandish, especially in regards to human institutions of power (more on this later); and (5) the ultimate triumph of God and His people after great struggle and adversity (at least on the part of people, God never really struggles to triumph - He speaks and it is done).
The best place to see an example of Jewish apocalyptic writing in our Bible is Daniel 7 - it would be helpful for what follows if you would read it. Here's a link: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Daniel+7. There, Daniel sees a vision of 4 beasts, each beast more terrible and powerful than its predecessor. It is important to note that Daniel's dreams are interpreted (in 7:16 and following). This would indicate that Daniel's visions are not strictly literal. They describe symbolically the empires of the earth:
1. A lion with eagles’ wings = The Babylonian Empire
- Winged lions show up in a lot of Babylonian art
- The plucking of the wings and reduction of the beast to a human indicates the defeat of the Babylonians and the fact that, after all, they’re just people
2. A bear with tusks = The Median Empire
- “Raised up on one side” – ready to attack
- Three tusks represent a ravenous appetite for treasure
3. A leopard with four heads and wings = The Persian Empire
- The wings may be referring to the speed of Persia’s conquests under Cyrus
- The four heads can either refer to Persia’s dominance in all directions (North, East, South, West), or to the four Persian kings mention in Ezra 1:1 and 4:6-7
4. A scary beast with ten horns and iron teeth = The Seleucid (Greek) Empire under Alexander the Great
- The ten horns represent the ten kings of the Seleucids culminating in Antiochus IV Epiphanes (his name means “Antiochus the fourth, the god manifest”; this guy was pretty crazy, so his enemies called him “Epimanes” which means “the mad one”, as a play on his name). I love this guy's name by the way, it's right up there with Tiglath Pileser.
- The first Seleucid kings had coins decorated with horns, which are symbols of divine power – (these will come up again in a big way in Revelation)
Revelation as uses beasts to describe the empires of human construction. This is a typical element in Jewish apocalypse. With symbolism being so prevalent in Revelation, the question comes - how shall we go about interpreting these symbols? Unlike Daniel, John does not have an interpreter to go to figure how the meanings behind some of the fantastic images and visions that are shown to him. Personally, I kind of like relying on the Holy Spirit, prayer, and patience to help in understanding, but that's just me…but here's some hopefully helpful thoughts about interpreting the symbolism.
1. Understanding the historic and literary context of the book. Revelation, like all of Scripture, is a product of its time and place as well as being a timeless work inspired by God. The book of Revelation has a historical setting and is rooted in the experience of Christians under the heel of the Roman Empire. Knowing the history is immensely helpful as we seek to understand. A major part of this study will be increasing our understanding of the Roman Empire and the persecutions that Christians were facing.
2. Understanding the reasons behind John's use of symbolism
a. Again, John is writing in the tradition of Jewish apocalypse
b. Revelation, in one sense, is a scathing critique of the Roman empire (and can serve to be a scathing critique of any earthly power, including America)
c. At its core, Revelation is about God's triumph over sin and evil; one surprising aspect of the book is how prominent scenes of worship are
3. It is helpful to understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy; "prophecy" does not refer to telling the future, but to telling the future. The way prophecy "tells the future" is that the prophet says: "if you continue to do rotten awful Thing A, then rotten, awful Thing B will happen to you." For example, if a king mistreats poor people, then eventually his kingdom will fall. Or, if the people of God continue worship false idols, God's judgment will fall upon them. The prophet's job is to tell powerful people that their behavior and beliefs are rotten and that God will punish them if they persist. Prophets were not popular people. Revelation is a book of prophecy in the sense that it reveals to us the depravity of a broken humanity and the reality of God's judgment. Revelation is not a chronological ordering of events yet to come. More about that next week.
That's enough for now…I'll post more next week! The grace and peace of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be with you!
Blogging Revelation
Starting tomorrow night, I'm leading a Bible study series at my church on Revelation. This will be the fourth time that I've taught this book and I like the knowledge that accrues from simply teaching a book of the Bible, especially one like this.
I've been battling back and forth in my head about whether or not I should blog about what I'm learning/teaching during this go-round with the book. There are some reasons why I'm hesitating:
1) Revelation and end-times theology in general are both controversial subjects and a lot of Christians are definitely not open to disagreement or differing interpretations when it comes to this stuff.
2) Mainline Protestants have not paid that much attention to this book in the past. Many moderate Christians would just as soon this book not be in the Bible. So there are a not a great deal of resources out there regarding this book (unless I'm totally missing something). That's probably just an excuse anyways.
That's about it for my reasons. Kind of lame. So I'm gonna blog our journey through Revelation, starting with today's blog, which is a summary of what we'll be covering tomorrow evening. In order for these not to be incredibly long entries, I'm gonna hit the high points, or break it up with 2 entries over the course of a week.
I've been battling back and forth in my head about whether or not I should blog about what I'm learning/teaching during this go-round with the book. There are some reasons why I'm hesitating:
1) Revelation and end-times theology in general are both controversial subjects and a lot of Christians are definitely not open to disagreement or differing interpretations when it comes to this stuff.
2) Mainline Protestants have not paid that much attention to this book in the past. Many moderate Christians would just as soon this book not be in the Bible. So there are a not a great deal of resources out there regarding this book (unless I'm totally missing something). That's probably just an excuse anyways.
That's about it for my reasons. Kind of lame. So I'm gonna blog our journey through Revelation, starting with today's blog, which is a summary of what we'll be covering tomorrow evening. In order for these not to be incredibly long entries, I'm gonna hit the high points, or break it up with 2 entries over the course of a week.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Thoughts About Stuff
There's a lot going on right now, in terms of sermon-writing, preparing Bible studies, meetings, along with the added stress of my 2-year-old son's upcoming surgery. So, my blogging has been sparse. I've had some good theological conversations over the last week or so, and perhaps just sitting down to write an entry will get the brain going. Here goes…
For those reading this who have known me for a while and have spent even a little time talking to me about theology, or the Church, you'll know that I tend to be very critical of what we call "American culture." I am increasingly unapologetically critical as I grow older and gain valuable experience. I used to say things like, "I really love my country, but…" or "I'm not saying that America's all bad, but…" as if I must avoid hurting America's feelings or something. Well, I figured something out: I love Jesus. It doesn't much matter how I feel about my country on any given day. Some days, I feel pretty dang upset. Other days, I feel pretty proud. While I was reading John Adams a few weeks ago, I was proud. When I watch the news, I feel angry and depressed. I shouldn't have to say "I really love my country and I'm so thankful to be living here" when I critique American culture from the standpoint of being a follower of Christ. My love of country has little to do with the truth of God Almighty. Now that that's cleared up…
In the book "Conversations with Barth on Preaching" (it feels like I've been reading this book for 20 years, though it is excellent), Bishop Will Willimon states on pg. 112: "We (Christians) are, in our speech, speaking against the presumed world of the majority". The Church is designed to be counter-cultural. Here is the danger of the current political rhetoric that we are seeing today. Equating America (or to use the language of today: "the Real America") with the Kingdom of God is extremely dangerous and is definitely idolatrous. One of my friends said it best: "God has not chosen a nation to perform the work of reconciliation in the world. God has chosen the Church." America is not an agent of God's will. That's the Church's job. And it's downright un-American to make a distinction between those citizens and those regions that you say are the "Real America" or "un-American". But I digress. Willimon is saying here that the Church is not tasked with simply being a shill for dominant cultural mores and expectations. We have a higher calling than being a mouthpiece and foot soldiers for the Republican party. We have a greater purpose than trying to convince people to vote for Democrats. We speak the truth of God, or at least strive to do so, not the sound bites of the moment. Our job as Christians is not to prop up American culture or American values, but to live and proclaim the truth of God.
Willimon continues: "Therefore, in our assertions, we will not find many interpretive allies in the weapons of the world. The world is accustomed to getting its messages from psychology, the vaunted ego, or clear-eyed reason. Our message requires a miracle to make it comprehensible." Wow. That's powerful stuff. And convicting. The Christian message presents a challenge to the way things are in the world, because Christians define themselves by a different set of criteria. We are not neurotics or depressed people or disordered people. We might suffer from those things and many of us truly do. But our identity is rooted in the Creator God, made possible by the grace of God given to us in Jesus Christ, revealed and fulfilled in us over time by the persistent work of the Holy Spirit. We are not our temporary dysfunctions. Nor are we designed to be individuals. Ah, the much-celebrated American individual. Rugged. Hard working. Never needs a hand out. With boot straps used to pull him or her self up. Probably wearing a cowboy hat. Can't you just smell the Stetson cologne? The American myth. Truth is, we do need a hand out. It's called "I'm a sinner. God help me." It's grace. And we are not designed to be individuals, we were made for each other, to love each other (a reality on made possible by the Holy Spirit). And clear-eyed reason? Paul, take this one away: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the wise?...For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." God's weakness was not an abstraction for Paul - it is the cross of Jesus. That's the strength of God revealed. And, to the world, it does not make sense. Which is why Willimon says that it takes a miracle for the Christian message to be comprehensible. Each conversion to the Christian faith is a miracle.
And one last Willimon quote: "Every Sunday we are issuing a declaration of war against some of the most cherished idols of our culture." Yes.
And one more from John Howard Yoder: "If moral discernment is not cultural critical, it has lost its connection with the gospel of grace and has fallen into the ratification of things as they are and choices as I want them."
For those reading this who have known me for a while and have spent even a little time talking to me about theology, or the Church, you'll know that I tend to be very critical of what we call "American culture." I am increasingly unapologetically critical as I grow older and gain valuable experience. I used to say things like, "I really love my country, but…" or "I'm not saying that America's all bad, but…" as if I must avoid hurting America's feelings or something. Well, I figured something out: I love Jesus. It doesn't much matter how I feel about my country on any given day. Some days, I feel pretty dang upset. Other days, I feel pretty proud. While I was reading John Adams a few weeks ago, I was proud. When I watch the news, I feel angry and depressed. I shouldn't have to say "I really love my country and I'm so thankful to be living here" when I critique American culture from the standpoint of being a follower of Christ. My love of country has little to do with the truth of God Almighty. Now that that's cleared up…
In the book "Conversations with Barth on Preaching" (it feels like I've been reading this book for 20 years, though it is excellent), Bishop Will Willimon states on pg. 112: "We (Christians) are, in our speech, speaking against the presumed world of the majority". The Church is designed to be counter-cultural. Here is the danger of the current political rhetoric that we are seeing today. Equating America (or to use the language of today: "the Real America") with the Kingdom of God is extremely dangerous and is definitely idolatrous. One of my friends said it best: "God has not chosen a nation to perform the work of reconciliation in the world. God has chosen the Church." America is not an agent of God's will. That's the Church's job. And it's downright un-American to make a distinction between those citizens and those regions that you say are the "Real America" or "un-American". But I digress. Willimon is saying here that the Church is not tasked with simply being a shill for dominant cultural mores and expectations. We have a higher calling than being a mouthpiece and foot soldiers for the Republican party. We have a greater purpose than trying to convince people to vote for Democrats. We speak the truth of God, or at least strive to do so, not the sound bites of the moment. Our job as Christians is not to prop up American culture or American values, but to live and proclaim the truth of God.
Willimon continues: "Therefore, in our assertions, we will not find many interpretive allies in the weapons of the world. The world is accustomed to getting its messages from psychology, the vaunted ego, or clear-eyed reason. Our message requires a miracle to make it comprehensible." Wow. That's powerful stuff. And convicting. The Christian message presents a challenge to the way things are in the world, because Christians define themselves by a different set of criteria. We are not neurotics or depressed people or disordered people. We might suffer from those things and many of us truly do. But our identity is rooted in the Creator God, made possible by the grace of God given to us in Jesus Christ, revealed and fulfilled in us over time by the persistent work of the Holy Spirit. We are not our temporary dysfunctions. Nor are we designed to be individuals. Ah, the much-celebrated American individual. Rugged. Hard working. Never needs a hand out. With boot straps used to pull him or her self up. Probably wearing a cowboy hat. Can't you just smell the Stetson cologne? The American myth. Truth is, we do need a hand out. It's called "I'm a sinner. God help me." It's grace. And we are not designed to be individuals, we were made for each other, to love each other (a reality on made possible by the Holy Spirit). And clear-eyed reason? Paul, take this one away: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the wise?...For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." God's weakness was not an abstraction for Paul - it is the cross of Jesus. That's the strength of God revealed. And, to the world, it does not make sense. Which is why Willimon says that it takes a miracle for the Christian message to be comprehensible. Each conversion to the Christian faith is a miracle.
And one last Willimon quote: "Every Sunday we are issuing a declaration of war against some of the most cherished idols of our culture." Yes.
And one more from John Howard Yoder: "If moral discernment is not cultural critical, it has lost its connection with the gospel of grace and has fallen into the ratification of things as they are and choices as I want them."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
More Thoughts on the Church
Last week, I posted some thoughts about the church and what is required for the church to actually be the "called out ones" indicated by the church's "original" name: the ekklesia. Well, the actual earliest name of Christians was "followers of the Way", but you get the point. Here are four things that are required for the people called the ekklesia to be about the work of transforming the world and making disciples for Jesus (and the list below is not at all intended to be exhaustive).
1. A complete trust and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
2. A relinquishment of ego.
3. An outward focus.
4. A shared vision.
Of course, there is much that could be written on any one of those four particular aspects and I may write more about them at a later date. As I've been thinking about the nature of the church over the past week, I'm slowly beginning to construct a cohesive ecclesiology in my head (at least it feels that way to me). I'm blogging about this stuff because I want to see if what's in my head can be put on paper and perhaps put into practice. So, for this entry, I'm going to list some statements of fact concerning the church (at least I believe them to be true). These are convictions that I have arrived at through a lifetime in the church and 10+ years doing "church work" at various locations. Here we go:
1) The church does not exist to meet the needs or wants of its current constituents. This is very important (and related to the relinquishment of ego). There are an unbelievably high number of church-going Christians whose primary criteria (and in some cases sole criteria) for assessing their church's effectiveness is how their own personal needs/wants are being met. This is a particularly pernicious consequence of reducing the church to simply one more service institution among many others. The job of the clergy/staff/leadership is to meet the needs of the consumers, according to this mindset. The job of the consumers is to be served. And, following the dictates of the marketplace, the "customer is always right." Should the church meet needs? Absolutely. One particular blessing of the church is its unique ability to make deep connections between people, and between people and God. Those connections are invaluable as we serve one another in the midst of the needs that we all have. However, if the church is operating primarily with this mindset, the community ceases to be the church, in my opinion. You can go to Philippians 2:5-7, or Matthew 20:28, or Mark 8:34-35, or Acts 2:43-47, among others, to see Scriptures that might form the beginnings of an appropriate attitude that Christians might have in relation to church. Not to mention I Corinthians 12-14.
2) The church is essential for Christian faith and practice. More times that I can count, I have heard the following sentiment expressed (usually in college after acquaintances found out that I was going into the ministry): "I'm a Christian, but I don't think I need to go to church. I can worship God in my own way." While people in the church in America may not necessarily express things that way, their level of involvement in the church indicates that we have plenty of self-professed Christians who have little to no use for church. Last week, I was looking at some statistics concerning the population within a 5 mile radius of my church. There were two statistics that spoke directly to this. 39% of people in Thomasville identified themselves as "conservative evangelical Christian". However, only 17% considered it "important to attend religious services". Less than half of those who consider themselves "conservative evangelical Christians" think that it's important to be involved in church. I am convicted that you cannot grow as a Christian, you cannot live the Christian life as God intends it unless you are involved in some way with the ekklesia. Being involved in the church does not guarantee that you will be a disciple (some people who have sat faithfully in a pew for years know nothing of Jesus), however I am convicted that being a disciple requires that you be involved with the church on a regular basis. I could (and probably will) go into a lot more detail, maybe I'll devote another post to this one.
3) In order for a particular church to survive (not to mention thrive), the church must embrace change. Many of my colleagues in ministry and my brothers and sisters in mainline Protestant churches are worried, even fearful, about the future of the church in America. There is good reason to be worried, though Jesus told us (a) not to worry, and (b) not to fear, so I'm trying to take him at his word. The church is struggling in many areas. In many churches, we don’t see the faith being passed down from one generation to the next because the younger generation is simply not there. We also see an older generation that, by and large, is not terribly interested in initiating change in the church to address this problem. That is a very broad generalization and any of us can produce anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In fact, a few of my greatest advocates for change in my church are older adults. But the exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule. There are many more people (in my experience in several different churches) that don't care enough to do the work required by radical change, that are too tired to do the work, or that actively resist the entire idea of change, even in small ways. The prevailing logic here is that "it worked for my parents/grandparents/when I was growing up, therefore it should work now." I cringe when I hear someone say, "when I was younger" or "We used to…". I don't believe in a "golden age of the church." I believe that, at least in this part of the world, going to church was, for most people, primarily a social expectation. I also believe that 50+ years ago, the church was pretty much the only game in town in terms of widespread community involvement for all generations. These two things have changed dramatically. What disheartens me is the response I see by the older generation in response to this change. Many shrug their shoulders as if to say, "what can we do?" They relieve themselves of any responsibility. Many are defensive and angry, blaming the church or the culture for what they perceive as the declining health of the church. For them, the blame lies outside of themselves for the situation. After all, they haven't changed, it's the world or the church that has changed.
4) Jesus is Lord. Earlier, I used the word "radical". I think this word gets thrown around a lot and the meaning of it is not really known. The word comes from the Latin "radix" which means "root". When I say "radical change", I don't necessarily mean massive, overwhelming, completely unanticipated change. I think that change for change's sake can be damaging and is mostly ineffective. However, "radical" change, in the appropriate sense of the word, is a change at the root of things. It means a transformation of understanding about primary motivations and mission. In other words, the mainline Protestant church in America must rediscover (or arguably simply discover) the depth of Christianity's earliest creedal statement: Jesus is Lord. Our goals, however lofty they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our positions, no matter how scripturally rooted we understand them to be or how in keeping with "traditional Methodism" they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our missions and outreach efforts, as noble as they can be, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And here's the thing, the church is the only community that I'm aware of that has been blessed and equipped to discern together what it means to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The church is God's chosen means for working out His will in the world for the sake of the world's reconciliation to Him. The Lordship of Jesus Christ, the active role of Jesus as Lord in our lives, is the root of our faith, our church, our very lives as Christians. And if we take seriously what Jesus says to us in Scripture and how we encounter Jesus in prayer, worship, and fellowship we will be changed, our selves and our churches will be transformed. Jesus is an agent of transformation. And, related to number one above, Jesus' goal for your life is not happiness, but holiness. Jesus died, not so you could have nice things, but so that you could have eternal life in God. Jesus rose from the dead, not so you could do things half way, half-heartedly, but so that you could live life to the fullest, trusting in God's grace in every aspect of your life. God has given to us His presence in the Holy Spirit, not so we could whine and complain, but so that we could live the Good News, share Jesus with broken people, work for the Kingdom. Thanks be to God!
1. A complete trust and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
2. A relinquishment of ego.
3. An outward focus.
4. A shared vision.
Of course, there is much that could be written on any one of those four particular aspects and I may write more about them at a later date. As I've been thinking about the nature of the church over the past week, I'm slowly beginning to construct a cohesive ecclesiology in my head (at least it feels that way to me). I'm blogging about this stuff because I want to see if what's in my head can be put on paper and perhaps put into practice. So, for this entry, I'm going to list some statements of fact concerning the church (at least I believe them to be true). These are convictions that I have arrived at through a lifetime in the church and 10+ years doing "church work" at various locations. Here we go:
1) The church does not exist to meet the needs or wants of its current constituents. This is very important (and related to the relinquishment of ego). There are an unbelievably high number of church-going Christians whose primary criteria (and in some cases sole criteria) for assessing their church's effectiveness is how their own personal needs/wants are being met. This is a particularly pernicious consequence of reducing the church to simply one more service institution among many others. The job of the clergy/staff/leadership is to meet the needs of the consumers, according to this mindset. The job of the consumers is to be served. And, following the dictates of the marketplace, the "customer is always right." Should the church meet needs? Absolutely. One particular blessing of the church is its unique ability to make deep connections between people, and between people and God. Those connections are invaluable as we serve one another in the midst of the needs that we all have. However, if the church is operating primarily with this mindset, the community ceases to be the church, in my opinion. You can go to Philippians 2:5-7, or Matthew 20:28, or Mark 8:34-35, or Acts 2:43-47, among others, to see Scriptures that might form the beginnings of an appropriate attitude that Christians might have in relation to church. Not to mention I Corinthians 12-14.
2) The church is essential for Christian faith and practice. More times that I can count, I have heard the following sentiment expressed (usually in college after acquaintances found out that I was going into the ministry): "I'm a Christian, but I don't think I need to go to church. I can worship God in my own way." While people in the church in America may not necessarily express things that way, their level of involvement in the church indicates that we have plenty of self-professed Christians who have little to no use for church. Last week, I was looking at some statistics concerning the population within a 5 mile radius of my church. There were two statistics that spoke directly to this. 39% of people in Thomasville identified themselves as "conservative evangelical Christian". However, only 17% considered it "important to attend religious services". Less than half of those who consider themselves "conservative evangelical Christians" think that it's important to be involved in church. I am convicted that you cannot grow as a Christian, you cannot live the Christian life as God intends it unless you are involved in some way with the ekklesia. Being involved in the church does not guarantee that you will be a disciple (some people who have sat faithfully in a pew for years know nothing of Jesus), however I am convicted that being a disciple requires that you be involved with the church on a regular basis. I could (and probably will) go into a lot more detail, maybe I'll devote another post to this one.
3) In order for a particular church to survive (not to mention thrive), the church must embrace change. Many of my colleagues in ministry and my brothers and sisters in mainline Protestant churches are worried, even fearful, about the future of the church in America. There is good reason to be worried, though Jesus told us (a) not to worry, and (b) not to fear, so I'm trying to take him at his word. The church is struggling in many areas. In many churches, we don’t see the faith being passed down from one generation to the next because the younger generation is simply not there. We also see an older generation that, by and large, is not terribly interested in initiating change in the church to address this problem. That is a very broad generalization and any of us can produce anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In fact, a few of my greatest advocates for change in my church are older adults. But the exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule. There are many more people (in my experience in several different churches) that don't care enough to do the work required by radical change, that are too tired to do the work, or that actively resist the entire idea of change, even in small ways. The prevailing logic here is that "it worked for my parents/grandparents/when I was growing up, therefore it should work now." I cringe when I hear someone say, "when I was younger" or "We used to…". I don't believe in a "golden age of the church." I believe that, at least in this part of the world, going to church was, for most people, primarily a social expectation. I also believe that 50+ years ago, the church was pretty much the only game in town in terms of widespread community involvement for all generations. These two things have changed dramatically. What disheartens me is the response I see by the older generation in response to this change. Many shrug their shoulders as if to say, "what can we do?" They relieve themselves of any responsibility. Many are defensive and angry, blaming the church or the culture for what they perceive as the declining health of the church. For them, the blame lies outside of themselves for the situation. After all, they haven't changed, it's the world or the church that has changed.
4) Jesus is Lord. Earlier, I used the word "radical". I think this word gets thrown around a lot and the meaning of it is not really known. The word comes from the Latin "radix" which means "root". When I say "radical change", I don't necessarily mean massive, overwhelming, completely unanticipated change. I think that change for change's sake can be damaging and is mostly ineffective. However, "radical" change, in the appropriate sense of the word, is a change at the root of things. It means a transformation of understanding about primary motivations and mission. In other words, the mainline Protestant church in America must rediscover (or arguably simply discover) the depth of Christianity's earliest creedal statement: Jesus is Lord. Our goals, however lofty they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our positions, no matter how scripturally rooted we understand them to be or how in keeping with "traditional Methodism" they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our missions and outreach efforts, as noble as they can be, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And here's the thing, the church is the only community that I'm aware of that has been blessed and equipped to discern together what it means to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The church is God's chosen means for working out His will in the world for the sake of the world's reconciliation to Him. The Lordship of Jesus Christ, the active role of Jesus as Lord in our lives, is the root of our faith, our church, our very lives as Christians. And if we take seriously what Jesus says to us in Scripture and how we encounter Jesus in prayer, worship, and fellowship we will be changed, our selves and our churches will be transformed. Jesus is an agent of transformation. And, related to number one above, Jesus' goal for your life is not happiness, but holiness. Jesus died, not so you could have nice things, but so that you could have eternal life in God. Jesus rose from the dead, not so you could do things half way, half-heartedly, but so that you could live life to the fullest, trusting in God's grace in every aspect of your life. God has given to us His presence in the Holy Spirit, not so we could whine and complain, but so that we could live the Good News, share Jesus with broken people, work for the Kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Some disconnected (and possibly incoherent) thoughts about church
The longer that I serve in ministry, the more concerned I become about the lack of understanding among Christians about the nature of the church. It appears to me that there has been a decades-long failure to grapple in a meaningful way with the purpose behind the existence of the church. We (Christians) are for the most part content to not be completely aware of what the nature and mission of the church actually is - in a broad sense (the "Church" on an institutional level, such as the United Methodist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, for example) or in a local, much smaller sense (what is the purpose of my particular church?). There are, of course, no simple answers to the questions "what is the nature of the church?" or "what is the mission of the church?" This is why these questions must be grappled with in a meaningful way.
The technical term for this kind of discussion is ecclesiology, which comes from the Greek word ekklesia. I love this word and I think about it often in the midst of my ministry. The word literally means "the called out ones". The ekklesia is a group called out (of what?) for a specific purpose. In its early uses before referring to the church, the ekklesia had a political connotation (the nature and function of the ekklesia changed over time). Ideally, the word still has a political connotation for the church, but not in the sense that a James Dobson or Pat Robertson might want it to mean (or Glenn Beck for that matter). The ekklesia, in terms of the Christian faith, is the primary agent by which God is at work in the world for the sake of reconciliation.
Those people who comprise the ekklesia have been called by God for just this purpose: the transformation of the world and the making of disciples (both of which, I would argue, fall under the heading "reconciliation"). This is a more active and challenging definition of "church" than, I daresay, most of our churches are willing to accept. Here's what it requires:
1) A complete trust and reliance upon the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus wasn't joking when he told his disciples that they would face situations where they would have to depend on the presence and power of the Spirit. It is no different for us. The flip side of this is the church fails in its mission when it relies solely on the abilities and energies of people.
2) A relinquishment of ego - kenosis. This is central to the church living up to its calling. In Philippians 2:5-7, Paul says the following:
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,being born in human likeness."
That phrase "emptied himself" can be summed up for our purposes here by the word kenosis, pouring yourself out. This concept of self-emptying factors heavily in my understanding of the church (the same idea is expressed by Jesus in Mark 8:34 - "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.") Church, in an important sense, is learning how to corporately lay aside selfish agendas for the sake of God's agenda, discerned through what Wesley called "holy conferencing", prayerful discernment, and careful/prayerful study of God's Word. This is almost excruciatingly difficult work for people who have been trained to be consumers and see church as existing to meet their narrow needs. They must be transformed by God's Spirit. People must be taught how to relinquish their ego and the church has, of all places in our culture, the resources to make this happen.
3) An outward focus. It has been my experience that many churches are quite content with who they currently have in their churches. This comfort with the current situation transforms a church from an ekklesia to a civic group. What many Christians fail to realize is that successful outreach breeds successful "inreach". The church is designed to be constantly going "out", to be constantly seeking people who are in need of God's grace (in other words, everybody).
4) A shared vision. It's nigh on impossible to have a successful church that has competing visions concerning what the church is "about". Of course, there will be some who are called to missions, some to care for the sick, some to worship planning, etc. I'm not talking about the diffusion of gifts among the Body. I'm talking about agreement on what we're here for. Missions is a particular manifestation of that, as is intentional discipleship, or care for the sick and dying, on and on. A major problem is that people often confuse particular manifestations of a vision for the vision itself. If the vision is "to make disciples and transform the world", this would be accomplished by various means using the multitude of gifts within a congregation.
I'm running out of steam…perhaps more later this week…the peace of Christ be with you.
The technical term for this kind of discussion is ecclesiology, which comes from the Greek word ekklesia. I love this word and I think about it often in the midst of my ministry. The word literally means "the called out ones". The ekklesia is a group called out (of what?) for a specific purpose. In its early uses before referring to the church, the ekklesia had a political connotation (the nature and function of the ekklesia changed over time). Ideally, the word still has a political connotation for the church, but not in the sense that a James Dobson or Pat Robertson might want it to mean (or Glenn Beck for that matter). The ekklesia, in terms of the Christian faith, is the primary agent by which God is at work in the world for the sake of reconciliation.
Those people who comprise the ekklesia have been called by God for just this purpose: the transformation of the world and the making of disciples (both of which, I would argue, fall under the heading "reconciliation"). This is a more active and challenging definition of "church" than, I daresay, most of our churches are willing to accept. Here's what it requires:
1) A complete trust and reliance upon the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus wasn't joking when he told his disciples that they would face situations where they would have to depend on the presence and power of the Spirit. It is no different for us. The flip side of this is the church fails in its mission when it relies solely on the abilities and energies of people.
2) A relinquishment of ego - kenosis. This is central to the church living up to its calling. In Philippians 2:5-7, Paul says the following:
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,being born in human likeness."
That phrase "emptied himself" can be summed up for our purposes here by the word kenosis, pouring yourself out. This concept of self-emptying factors heavily in my understanding of the church (the same idea is expressed by Jesus in Mark 8:34 - "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.") Church, in an important sense, is learning how to corporately lay aside selfish agendas for the sake of God's agenda, discerned through what Wesley called "holy conferencing", prayerful discernment, and careful/prayerful study of God's Word. This is almost excruciatingly difficult work for people who have been trained to be consumers and see church as existing to meet their narrow needs. They must be transformed by God's Spirit. People must be taught how to relinquish their ego and the church has, of all places in our culture, the resources to make this happen.
3) An outward focus. It has been my experience that many churches are quite content with who they currently have in their churches. This comfort with the current situation transforms a church from an ekklesia to a civic group. What many Christians fail to realize is that successful outreach breeds successful "inreach". The church is designed to be constantly going "out", to be constantly seeking people who are in need of God's grace (in other words, everybody).
4) A shared vision. It's nigh on impossible to have a successful church that has competing visions concerning what the church is "about". Of course, there will be some who are called to missions, some to care for the sick, some to worship planning, etc. I'm not talking about the diffusion of gifts among the Body. I'm talking about agreement on what we're here for. Missions is a particular manifestation of that, as is intentional discipleship, or care for the sick and dying, on and on. A major problem is that people often confuse particular manifestations of a vision for the vision itself. If the vision is "to make disciples and transform the world", this would be accomplished by various means using the multitude of gifts within a congregation.
I'm running out of steam…perhaps more later this week…the peace of Christ be with you.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Few Thoughts About Christian Freedom
The following is from a homily given by Rowan Williams at the Holy Spirit in the World Conference at St. Mellitus College in England back in May (found the link through the terrific Faith and Theology blog). Here's the link to the audio page: http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/holy-spirit-in-the-world-today-conference-talks/
"True freedom is freedom for a full humanity…"
"Full humanity is Christ-shaped…"
"And so freedom is kenotic. Freedom for self-emptying…"
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself…" - Philippians 2:5-7a
"Full humanity is not a humanity that which is blithely or blandly in control, but a humanity that is overwhelmed by the energy of giving, with all the recklessness and risk that entails."
It is counter-intuitive, this Christian discipleship thing. It is truly, as Paul says, strength in weakness. I'm finding that being a Christian means, in one respect, that you are free to be wrong. You are free to need forgiveness - from God and from other people. You are freed from the improper demands of a human holiness and are given, instead, a holiness that comes from God, a righteousness not of our own or of our own making, but that is freely conferred/given/transferred/imputed to us as a gift of God's grace. What a liberating Word of grace! And I understand fully the importance of the word that is used when talking about this righteousness that is given to people by God. The main point here is the gifted nature of our existence as Christians (and simply as people, for that matter).
I think about my faith and my life in Christ in this way and I feel the passion and excitement that has come and gone in my time as a disciple. Like Eugene Peterson said, it is a long obedience in the same direction. Some days, the flame flickers and burns low. Some days (very rare, but it does happen), the flame seems to be extinguished. Most days, the flame of my faith burns at a steady, good rate. There are those days when the fire is fed and the flame rises and I feel inspired. This sermon, actually about 5 minutes of the middle part, put fuel in the fire.
Would that all people could feel the refreshment of the Spirit, the freedom in Christ to give, to be kind, to be generous, to be forgiving. Would that people could be liberated from insisting upon their own way, freed from having to always be right, always be in control. Freed from insistence upon their own way. Freed from the selfish desire that everyone see the world and experience God the way they do.
Jesus frees us to be wrong, to be forgiven. Jesus also frees us to not always have to be right. Jesus frees us from pride, from the anger that threatens us when someone disagrees with us. Jesus frees us from harmful anger. We Americans are, by and large, an angry people. And many Christians have anger as their primary motivation. And it is not healthy or sustainable. There are indeed many things to be angry about - injustice, oppression, inequality, greed, moral degradation - the list could go on. But, as a Christian, am I not defined nor ultimately motivated by my anger. I am motivated by the Spirit of God which is always already at work for reconciliation and peace in our world. Jesus is freeing me from an angry absorption in the outrage de jour. Jesus is freeing me to forgive and to be forgiven. To love and to be loved. Free me, Lord, from a mean spirit. Fill me with Your Spirit. Amen.
"True freedom is freedom for a full humanity…"
"Full humanity is Christ-shaped…"
"And so freedom is kenotic. Freedom for self-emptying…"
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself…" - Philippians 2:5-7a
"Full humanity is not a humanity that which is blithely or blandly in control, but a humanity that is overwhelmed by the energy of giving, with all the recklessness and risk that entails."
It is counter-intuitive, this Christian discipleship thing. It is truly, as Paul says, strength in weakness. I'm finding that being a Christian means, in one respect, that you are free to be wrong. You are free to need forgiveness - from God and from other people. You are freed from the improper demands of a human holiness and are given, instead, a holiness that comes from God, a righteousness not of our own or of our own making, but that is freely conferred/given/transferred/imputed to us as a gift of God's grace. What a liberating Word of grace! And I understand fully the importance of the word that is used when talking about this righteousness that is given to people by God. The main point here is the gifted nature of our existence as Christians (and simply as people, for that matter).
I think about my faith and my life in Christ in this way and I feel the passion and excitement that has come and gone in my time as a disciple. Like Eugene Peterson said, it is a long obedience in the same direction. Some days, the flame flickers and burns low. Some days (very rare, but it does happen), the flame seems to be extinguished. Most days, the flame of my faith burns at a steady, good rate. There are those days when the fire is fed and the flame rises and I feel inspired. This sermon, actually about 5 minutes of the middle part, put fuel in the fire.
Would that all people could feel the refreshment of the Spirit, the freedom in Christ to give, to be kind, to be generous, to be forgiving. Would that people could be liberated from insisting upon their own way, freed from having to always be right, always be in control. Freed from insistence upon their own way. Freed from the selfish desire that everyone see the world and experience God the way they do.
Jesus frees us to be wrong, to be forgiven. Jesus also frees us to not always have to be right. Jesus frees us from pride, from the anger that threatens us when someone disagrees with us. Jesus frees us from harmful anger. We Americans are, by and large, an angry people. And many Christians have anger as their primary motivation. And it is not healthy or sustainable. There are indeed many things to be angry about - injustice, oppression, inequality, greed, moral degradation - the list could go on. But, as a Christian, am I not defined nor ultimately motivated by my anger. I am motivated by the Spirit of God which is always already at work for reconciliation and peace in our world. Jesus is freeing me from an angry absorption in the outrage de jour. Jesus is freeing me to forgive and to be forgiven. To love and to be loved. Free me, Lord, from a mean spirit. Fill me with Your Spirit. Amen.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Scattered, Disconnected Thoughts on This Week's Gospel Reading, part 1
I haven't blogged in a while - summer busy-ness and vacation have prevented me from doing much reflection or writing. Now that things look to be calming down a little and having returned from vacation, I hope to get in a rhythm on this blog. My thinking initially is that I would post 2-3 times a week, one post focused on whatever Scripture I'll be preaching on the next Sunday (or Bible study topic), one post on a theological topic that I'm currently kicking around in my head (and heart), and possibly one non-ministry related topic. I'm hoping to get back to my first intentions. So here goes…
The Gospel passage for this Sunday is Luke 12:32-40, which is basically some teachings of Jesus concerning readiness and watchfulness (which will most likely be my sermon focus this week). Here's the text:
32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
35"Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; 36be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. 37Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. 38If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.
39"But know this: if the owner of the house had known what hour the thief was coming, he would have not let his house be broken into. 40You must also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour."
This passage is part of a much larger section of teaching going back to the beginning of chapter 11. Jesus continues in verse 32 by telling his "little flock" (his disciples) not to be afraid. This is important encouragement, considering what is to follow. On first glance, this seems to be a string of disconnected thoughts until you really starting pondering what Jesus is getting at here. What threw me off initially was the move from verse 34 to 35 and then the differing images in the last two "sections". But, as I'm thinking about it, it's starting to come together a little.
Verse 32 hearkens back to Luke 6:20 - "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." The 'little flock', this little band of followers who left families, jobs, lives to follow after a travelling preacher who proclaimed himself the "Son of Man" - they're going to be given the kingdom? Unbelievable. It is pleasing to God to give the kingdom to these people - imperfect, sinful, soon-to-be betrayers and deniers. In a word, us. We, too, are that little flock. And simply acknowledging that does not prevent us from denying Jesus (see: Peter) or betraying him when we misunderstand his mission (see: Judas, or at least that's my interpretation). We spend a lot of time talking about our faith in God, but it's more amazing that God has faith in us.
What I like about this passage is that it connects the actions of a disciple (verse 33 - a particular emphasis in Luke - take care of the poor) to the state of the heart (verse 34) to our readiness for "action" (v. 35) to the willingness of God to serve those who are ready (v. 37) to our watchfulness (v. 40). This seems like a jumble, but here's what I'm seeing here: the way you live your life is (of course) connected to the condition of your heart. What you value, whatever you hold in highest regard will order your actions and your decisions. So, of primary importance to the Christian is helping the poor (oh, if all Christian Americans would discover anew this aspect of Jesus' teaching - and it's not just about writing checks!). Why? Because we have a responsibility to one another, we have been commanded to love each another - this is how God intends life to go.
We are then, by stages, freed from those things that would keep us from following after Jesus with our whole heart, whatever those things are. The key concept here is that following Jesus frees us from idolatry. We are able to be ready and watchful - but for what? The coming of the Son of Man. And here's where things get a little complicated. I generally try to avoid too much conversation about "end times" stuff, because it has been my experience that some folks cling to their understanding with a tenacity and self-assurance that can be a little off-putting. Again, I trust Jesus: "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own..." I'm not sure that I have the room in this post to go into the whole issue of eschatology (which is the theological study of the end times). Maybe later...
The Gospel passage for this Sunday is Luke 12:32-40, which is basically some teachings of Jesus concerning readiness and watchfulness (which will most likely be my sermon focus this week). Here's the text:
32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
35"Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; 36be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. 37Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. 38If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.
39"But know this: if the owner of the house had known what hour the thief was coming, he would have not let his house be broken into. 40You must also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour."
This passage is part of a much larger section of teaching going back to the beginning of chapter 11. Jesus continues in verse 32 by telling his "little flock" (his disciples) not to be afraid. This is important encouragement, considering what is to follow. On first glance, this seems to be a string of disconnected thoughts until you really starting pondering what Jesus is getting at here. What threw me off initially was the move from verse 34 to 35 and then the differing images in the last two "sections". But, as I'm thinking about it, it's starting to come together a little.
Verse 32 hearkens back to Luke 6:20 - "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." The 'little flock', this little band of followers who left families, jobs, lives to follow after a travelling preacher who proclaimed himself the "Son of Man" - they're going to be given the kingdom? Unbelievable. It is pleasing to God to give the kingdom to these people - imperfect, sinful, soon-to-be betrayers and deniers. In a word, us. We, too, are that little flock. And simply acknowledging that does not prevent us from denying Jesus (see: Peter) or betraying him when we misunderstand his mission (see: Judas, or at least that's my interpretation). We spend a lot of time talking about our faith in God, but it's more amazing that God has faith in us.
What I like about this passage is that it connects the actions of a disciple (verse 33 - a particular emphasis in Luke - take care of the poor) to the state of the heart (verse 34) to our readiness for "action" (v. 35) to the willingness of God to serve those who are ready (v. 37) to our watchfulness (v. 40). This seems like a jumble, but here's what I'm seeing here: the way you live your life is (of course) connected to the condition of your heart. What you value, whatever you hold in highest regard will order your actions and your decisions. So, of primary importance to the Christian is helping the poor (oh, if all Christian Americans would discover anew this aspect of Jesus' teaching - and it's not just about writing checks!). Why? Because we have a responsibility to one another, we have been commanded to love each another - this is how God intends life to go.
We are then, by stages, freed from those things that would keep us from following after Jesus with our whole heart, whatever those things are. The key concept here is that following Jesus frees us from idolatry. We are able to be ready and watchful - but for what? The coming of the Son of Man. And here's where things get a little complicated. I generally try to avoid too much conversation about "end times" stuff, because it has been my experience that some folks cling to their understanding with a tenacity and self-assurance that can be a little off-putting. Again, I trust Jesus: "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own..." I'm not sure that I have the room in this post to go into the whole issue of eschatology (which is the theological study of the end times). Maybe later...
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Some Temptations in Preaching
As I started my ministry at my current church 2 years ago, one of the things that I was concerned about was the task of preaching every week. I was really worried that I would be overwhelmed and ineffective. Well, I have learned that any effectiveness in preaching has everything to do with the Holy Spirit and nothing much to do with me. It is my job to prepare the sermon through prayer and study and then get out of the way, so that the Spirit can work. I'm still working on this. I'm noticing, however, that there are some temptations in preaching that I deal with on a regular basis.
I'm currently reading (albeit slowly) Will Willimon's book Conversations with Barth on Preaching and several points that Willimon (or Barth) makes early on have been really helpful in dealing with these temptations.
1) I am tempted to make sermon preparation and preaching an exclusively intellectual enterprise. Willimon says on pg. 24: "Our fertile imaginations are not the key to biblical interpretation but rather the work of the Holy Spirit. The source of any interesting interpretation is prayer." Wow, I need to hear that every week. Sometimes I operate as if by uncovering some obscure fact or some hitherto unknown meaning for this word or that phrase, then the "true" meaning of the text will shine forth, based on my research and understanding. Willimon states further, on page 27: "Biblical preachers must cultivate the art of relinquishment, letting go of our dearest insights in deference to the Bible's insights." I love how Willimon shoots that idea down so eloquently. My imagination or research or ability to make connections or draw conclusions are not the things that bring cohesion and clarity to the text - that's the work of the Spirit. My intelligence or skill (any that I possess are given as gifts of God) don't lead people to repentance or salvation - that's God's job.
2) I am tempted to focus on myself or my own experiences. I have been trying lately, and with varying success, to steer sermons away from stories or anecdotes about myself. Far too many times, I have begun sermons or introduced points by saying: "When I was…" You can fill in the blanks: "…in college"; "…in seminary"; "…growing up" - on and on. So often, I have made my experience the starting point of whatever point I was trying to make. In comparison to God's Word, my life is a pretty sorry starting point. I've had a good life and I've been blessed beyond measure, but I'm not the focus of the sermon! Willimon states aptly regarding this point, on page 33 that we preachers too often seek refuge, not in some philosophical system or school of thought, but "in that last pitiful asylum of the modern person: our own subjectivity." We assume that our experience is the best starting point for the work of preaching, we focus not on the God revealed in Christ, but on our own experience. George Hunsinger (as quoted by Willimon on page 73) states this clearly: "Experience, Barth acknowledged, can scarcely be presented as absent from the life of faith, but neither can it be regarded as central to the life of faith. We believe in Christ, he insisted, not in our experience of Christ; we attempt to listen to the gospel, not to our experience of the gospel; we believe in salvation, not in our experience of salvation." I tend to think I'm getting something right when I don't talk about myself in the sermon at all, but rather focus on God's redemptive work through Christ and how God is working in us through the Spirit. Here's one final thought (pg. 71): "God is the object that stimulates our thought and talk about God, not anything subjectively arising from within us. Barth criticized that sort of modern theology 'which starts with pious experience or faith'."
3) I am tempted to be an exegetical show-off. Barth states, "preaching is exposition, not exegesis. It follows the text but moves on from it to the preacher's own heart and to the congregation." By the way, I did not learn the word "exegesis" until I went to seminary. It means the careful, close study of Scripture. The basic meaning is "to draw out of". In exegesis, the preacher is trying to draw out of the text the meaning that God is trying to communicate. The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, which is when we put into the text our own meaning. When we are seeking meaning from the text it's exegesis (which is appropriate and rewarding); when we go to the text with our minds made up about what it means and read the text having already decided what it says and means, that's eisegesis (which is lazy and almost always inappropriate). I sometimes am tempted to make my sermon about my own exegesis and not about what God wants the congregation to hear through the proclaimed Word. The bridge between exegesis and exposition is prayer. In order to know my own heart, in order to have any idea about what the congregation needs to hear, in order to hear what God is speaking - prayer must be the central piece of the work of preaching. I am learning this, however slowly. One temptation for me is that I want to "show my work". I want the congregation to know that I've studied, taken my time, pored over the passage. But, that's more about making myself look good rather than pointing the way to Jesus Christ. This is related to my first temptation - there's a lot that I'm learning to let go of, to relinquish things that I might find fascinating, but that have no bearing on the Gospel message I'm called to proclaim.
4) Finally, I tempted to try to be likeable. I want my congregation to like me, to find me agreeable. I don't want to make people angry or upset, or even confused. Giving in to this temptation means that I water down the truth, I underestimate my congregation's ability and desire to hear a difficult, challenging word. It means that when I give in to this temptation, I'm not speaking what God is calling me to speak, when the message is hard to hear. I'm finding that preaching, real honest-to-God preaching, requires courage. I'm working on it. Here's what Barth says: "My calling is to speak and speak clearly…If I wanted to be liked, I would keep quiet." Amen.
I'm currently reading (albeit slowly) Will Willimon's book Conversations with Barth on Preaching and several points that Willimon (or Barth) makes early on have been really helpful in dealing with these temptations.
1) I am tempted to make sermon preparation and preaching an exclusively intellectual enterprise. Willimon says on pg. 24: "Our fertile imaginations are not the key to biblical interpretation but rather the work of the Holy Spirit. The source of any interesting interpretation is prayer." Wow, I need to hear that every week. Sometimes I operate as if by uncovering some obscure fact or some hitherto unknown meaning for this word or that phrase, then the "true" meaning of the text will shine forth, based on my research and understanding. Willimon states further, on page 27: "Biblical preachers must cultivate the art of relinquishment, letting go of our dearest insights in deference to the Bible's insights." I love how Willimon shoots that idea down so eloquently. My imagination or research or ability to make connections or draw conclusions are not the things that bring cohesion and clarity to the text - that's the work of the Spirit. My intelligence or skill (any that I possess are given as gifts of God) don't lead people to repentance or salvation - that's God's job.
2) I am tempted to focus on myself or my own experiences. I have been trying lately, and with varying success, to steer sermons away from stories or anecdotes about myself. Far too many times, I have begun sermons or introduced points by saying: "When I was…" You can fill in the blanks: "…in college"; "…in seminary"; "…growing up" - on and on. So often, I have made my experience the starting point of whatever point I was trying to make. In comparison to God's Word, my life is a pretty sorry starting point. I've had a good life and I've been blessed beyond measure, but I'm not the focus of the sermon! Willimon states aptly regarding this point, on page 33 that we preachers too often seek refuge, not in some philosophical system or school of thought, but "in that last pitiful asylum of the modern person: our own subjectivity." We assume that our experience is the best starting point for the work of preaching, we focus not on the God revealed in Christ, but on our own experience. George Hunsinger (as quoted by Willimon on page 73) states this clearly: "Experience, Barth acknowledged, can scarcely be presented as absent from the life of faith, but neither can it be regarded as central to the life of faith. We believe in Christ, he insisted, not in our experience of Christ; we attempt to listen to the gospel, not to our experience of the gospel; we believe in salvation, not in our experience of salvation." I tend to think I'm getting something right when I don't talk about myself in the sermon at all, but rather focus on God's redemptive work through Christ and how God is working in us through the Spirit. Here's one final thought (pg. 71): "God is the object that stimulates our thought and talk about God, not anything subjectively arising from within us. Barth criticized that sort of modern theology 'which starts with pious experience or faith'."
3) I am tempted to be an exegetical show-off. Barth states, "preaching is exposition, not exegesis. It follows the text but moves on from it to the preacher's own heart and to the congregation." By the way, I did not learn the word "exegesis" until I went to seminary. It means the careful, close study of Scripture. The basic meaning is "to draw out of". In exegesis, the preacher is trying to draw out of the text the meaning that God is trying to communicate. The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, which is when we put into the text our own meaning. When we are seeking meaning from the text it's exegesis (which is appropriate and rewarding); when we go to the text with our minds made up about what it means and read the text having already decided what it says and means, that's eisegesis (which is lazy and almost always inappropriate). I sometimes am tempted to make my sermon about my own exegesis and not about what God wants the congregation to hear through the proclaimed Word. The bridge between exegesis and exposition is prayer. In order to know my own heart, in order to have any idea about what the congregation needs to hear, in order to hear what God is speaking - prayer must be the central piece of the work of preaching. I am learning this, however slowly. One temptation for me is that I want to "show my work". I want the congregation to know that I've studied, taken my time, pored over the passage. But, that's more about making myself look good rather than pointing the way to Jesus Christ. This is related to my first temptation - there's a lot that I'm learning to let go of, to relinquish things that I might find fascinating, but that have no bearing on the Gospel message I'm called to proclaim.
4) Finally, I tempted to try to be likeable. I want my congregation to like me, to find me agreeable. I don't want to make people angry or upset, or even confused. Giving in to this temptation means that I water down the truth, I underestimate my congregation's ability and desire to hear a difficult, challenging word. It means that when I give in to this temptation, I'm not speaking what God is calling me to speak, when the message is hard to hear. I'm finding that preaching, real honest-to-God preaching, requires courage. I'm working on it. Here's what Barth says: "My calling is to speak and speak clearly…If I wanted to be liked, I would keep quiet." Amen.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Some Thoughts on This Week's Scripture
This Sunday, I'll be preaching on Luke 10:25-37, otherwise known as the Good Samaritan passage. This is one of those texts that present a bit of a challenge in preaching. I really enjoy preaching obscure passages that folks have probably never heard a sermon on before (for example, on my last Sunday at my previous church, I preached on 3 John 2-8 - that was fun). It's hard to preach on a passage as famous as the Good Samaritan because:
Regarding this week's text, the story of the Good Samaritan is easily reduced to simple moralism and shallow sentimentality. But, if you learn anything about Jesus in the Gospels, it's that he doesn't really do simple moralism or shallow sentimentality. The shallow, surface lesson here is: "It's good to help out people in need." That's what has stuck in our culture. A "good Samaritan" is anyone who helps somebody else. And that's about it. Well, of course, there's more to the story than immediately meets the eye.
I'd venture a guess that most Christians know this, too. We might suspect (and probably have heard before) that this story is not quite as simple as "helping people is good". After all, there is a reason Jesus specifies that a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan pass by. It's not general, unidentified people. We know, too, that the priest and the Levite were representatives of the Jewish religious institution, representing God (supposedly) and the worship of God in Israel. For Americans (especially those of us in the South), the "preacher" would fill this role nicely (or even the "Christian").
The Samaritan, for Jews in Jesus' day, would have been public enemy #1. Jews and Samaritans (for the most part) hated each other, deeply. If you read the Scripture, notice that the Jewish lawyer can't even bring himself to say the word "Samaritan" at the end of the passage, even as he acknowledges that the Samaritan in the story represented the true neighbor.
This is, on one level, a story about our expectations and assumptions about other people based on their role in society or on their ethnic identity. This is also a story about our own prejudice and the hatred or anger we harbor in our hearts toward other children of God. Maybe it's not even hatred, maybe it's simply that we regard "those people" as less than ourselves. And we all have a "those people".
This story is especially apropos considering the ongoing debate about immigration. I have heard a good number of people talk about "them Mexicans" or "those illegals" as if they were livestock and not beloved children of the Living God. A question that I'm hearing from this week's passage - what's more important: following the letter of the law (in the case of the priest and the Levite, it's Numbers 19:11-13) or helping people in need, no matter their immigration status? Maybe the conversation for us Christians needs to be "how should the Church respond?" instead of "what should our lawmakers do"?
But it's not simply about immigration. Many Christians, like all other groups, have their own sets of "others" that pose a threat and are cordoned off from the rest of humanity. Just to run down a list: homosexuals, Muslims/Jihadists, liberals (or conservatives), atheists, secularists...you get the idea, "those people". I love that Jesus and the rest of the New Testament pushes us, again and again, to not see "those people" but to see a neighbor, a child of God lovingly created in His image. To not see an enemy, but a child of God. And that's hard work. After all, some of those Jihadists would as soon see me and my family killed before they'd offer me a cup of water. But, going back to Jesus, I'm not responsible for their sin - my part is to pray for them and love them (and that doesn't mean that I should take my family to the next Al Qaeda gathering to hand out tracts). "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." I'm working on it, if you're a Christian, you should too.
Apologies for the rambling nature of this post. I'll attempt to make it up to you with this uplifting and inspiring quote from Kierkegaard: "The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. 'My God', you will say, 'if I do that my whole life will be ruined.' Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of a living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." Chew on that for a while...
- You're tempted to take shortcuts in preparation, because after all, you probably consider yourself sufficiently familiar with the text already. To counter this impulse, I've got a note on my laptop dock at work that reads "Read it again - you don't know it as well as you think you know it." That has helped me on many occasions and is helping me this week.
- I assume that my congregation also considers themselves sufficiently familiar with the text. After all, everybody knows this story, right?
- A further temptation for me is to try to jostle some obscure detail out of the text that people might not have thought about before. That kind of gimmick-centered preaching gets old pretty quickly. I also try to steer away from "The Greek says...". The "obscure fact" or reliance on the original languages can be helpful, but only if used in very small doses. (However, I worked hard learning Hebrew and Greek - I'm pretty adamant that it will not go unused.)
Regarding this week's text, the story of the Good Samaritan is easily reduced to simple moralism and shallow sentimentality. But, if you learn anything about Jesus in the Gospels, it's that he doesn't really do simple moralism or shallow sentimentality. The shallow, surface lesson here is: "It's good to help out people in need." That's what has stuck in our culture. A "good Samaritan" is anyone who helps somebody else. And that's about it. Well, of course, there's more to the story than immediately meets the eye.
I'd venture a guess that most Christians know this, too. We might suspect (and probably have heard before) that this story is not quite as simple as "helping people is good". After all, there is a reason Jesus specifies that a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan pass by. It's not general, unidentified people. We know, too, that the priest and the Levite were representatives of the Jewish religious institution, representing God (supposedly) and the worship of God in Israel. For Americans (especially those of us in the South), the "preacher" would fill this role nicely (or even the "Christian").
The Samaritan, for Jews in Jesus' day, would have been public enemy #1. Jews and Samaritans (for the most part) hated each other, deeply. If you read the Scripture, notice that the Jewish lawyer can't even bring himself to say the word "Samaritan" at the end of the passage, even as he acknowledges that the Samaritan in the story represented the true neighbor.
This is, on one level, a story about our expectations and assumptions about other people based on their role in society or on their ethnic identity. This is also a story about our own prejudice and the hatred or anger we harbor in our hearts toward other children of God. Maybe it's not even hatred, maybe it's simply that we regard "those people" as less than ourselves. And we all have a "those people".
This story is especially apropos considering the ongoing debate about immigration. I have heard a good number of people talk about "them Mexicans" or "those illegals" as if they were livestock and not beloved children of the Living God. A question that I'm hearing from this week's passage - what's more important: following the letter of the law (in the case of the priest and the Levite, it's Numbers 19:11-13) or helping people in need, no matter their immigration status? Maybe the conversation for us Christians needs to be "how should the Church respond?" instead of "what should our lawmakers do"?
But it's not simply about immigration. Many Christians, like all other groups, have their own sets of "others" that pose a threat and are cordoned off from the rest of humanity. Just to run down a list: homosexuals, Muslims/Jihadists, liberals (or conservatives), atheists, secularists...you get the idea, "those people". I love that Jesus and the rest of the New Testament pushes us, again and again, to not see "those people" but to see a neighbor, a child of God lovingly created in His image. To not see an enemy, but a child of God. And that's hard work. After all, some of those Jihadists would as soon see me and my family killed before they'd offer me a cup of water. But, going back to Jesus, I'm not responsible for their sin - my part is to pray for them and love them (and that doesn't mean that I should take my family to the next Al Qaeda gathering to hand out tracts). "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." I'm working on it, if you're a Christian, you should too.
Apologies for the rambling nature of this post. I'll attempt to make it up to you with this uplifting and inspiring quote from Kierkegaard: "The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. 'My God', you will say, 'if I do that my whole life will be ruined.' Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of a living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." Chew on that for a while...
Monday, June 28, 2010
Scattered, Not Quite Cohesive Thoughts About America, My 4th of July Sermon, and Being an American Christian
This is rambling and probably not organized very well, but it is honest:
As we approach the 4th of July holiday, the decision is once again before me as a preacher: how do I address this national holiday, if at all? This has led to several weeks of questioning, praying, and thinking. Here are some assorted thoughts/questions/options:
- I could decide not to address the holiday at all in my preaching. I'm pretty sure that I could not get away with ignoring the holiday altogether in my congregation. There is an impulse in me to not pay a bit of attention to this national, secular holiday. To simply preach the lectionary, choose some good, strong hymns of the church and let my people celebrate in ways and times of their choosing. That option has theological and ecclesiological merit.
- I could simply give in to the patriotic impulse and focus the whole service on America and the holiday. Actually, that's not really an option. And I really couldn't do that. We're not in church to praise and worship America. We're not in church to praise and worship God for America. It's not ultimately about America. We come to church not to serve country, but to serve and worship God. And I do believe that the choice, in this instance, is that stark.
- Of course, as is usually the case, I choose a middle way. I believe several things about my task as preacher:
○ My focus is God and what God is revealing to me/us in Scripture.
○ I must tell the truth, to the best of my ability and using my best understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit in preparation and delivery.
○ While the desires of the congregation are not my primary concern in preaching, I believe that my preaching should be relevant to the lives of my parishoners and I should also be concerned with what my church is concerned with.
In this particular case, the holiday will be on everyone's mind when they come to church Sunday. I can either work against that by ignoring it, indulge that by simply echoing empty patriotic platitudes, or I can draw that through the prism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So my plan is to be truthful about being a Christian and being an American, as best I can with my limited understanding, through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I begin to prepare for my sermon in earnest, I have been pondering the Scriptures that I have chosen for this Sunday.
Mark 12:13-17
13Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it." 16And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" They answered, "The emperor's." 17Jesus said to them, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's , and to God the things that are God's." And they were utterly amazed at him.
Philippians 3:18-21
18For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.
In the Mark passage, the Pharisees attempt to trap Jesus in a false dilemma: which is it, Jesus, Caesar or God? Jesus easily dismisses their attempt at entrapping him by stating that there are things that properly belong to Caesar (in this case, money marked with the image of the Emperor) and there are those things that properly belong to God. This leads to a question: can we demarcate things that do not belong to God? What is the theological justification of "private property", especially in light of Acts 2:44 ("All who believed were together and had all things in common.") As I understand it, we (Christians) like to live as if there are aspects of our lives that we can deem as "secular" or "public" - places where our commitment to Jesus Christ is not determinative or definitive. Are those areas where another role or aspect of our identity trump our identity as Christians? Paul, in the Philippians passage, would answer emphatically: No! If Jesus is Lord, really and truly Lord, then He is Lord over everything in my life and every aspect of my life must be understood in light of Jesus' lordship. Obviously, this means that if I take seriously the Lordship of Jesus (or, to put it another way, if I take seriously my status as a "citizen of heaven") then I cannot place my identity as an American in a place of prominence over and above my identity as a Christian, ever.
And here is where we must be truthful and clear. Many American Christians make little or no effort in thinking about possible places of conflict or contestation between being an American and a Christian. Most middle class American Christians have not given sufficient thought (in my humble opinion) to the differences and distances between the Kingdom of God and the nation/empire/idea of America. Consequently, there is a lot of rhetoric about the U.S. being a "godly nation" (or perhaps this only applies to certain Americans, if you live in a city or vote Democratic, in the minds and rhetoric of some, you don't fit the mold) or we talk about how America was founded as a "Christian nation" (not exactly historically accurate). Here's my disclaimer: I love this country, its history, its ideals, its messiness, and its complexity. I am fascinated by the American experiment and our bumbling towards some semblance of justice and liberty by fits and starts. We have failed many times and still do, but it has been spectacular (in the sense of this whole thing being a spectacle).
As much as I love this country and its history, I do not have "faith in America", I have faith in God. This is a sinful nation filled with sinners. Like every other nation that exists or has ever existed. America is not specially blessed, it is not chosen, it is not the "new Israel", whatever that means. We err, at times grievously and at great cost to millions across our world. We over-consume and are too often careless about the costs of our consumption. We are petulant and hubristic. We will face the judgment, like every other nation. I'll close up this posting with a quote from Tony Campolo: "Don’t get me wrong, I love the United States of America. It’s the best Babylon on the face of the earth, but it’s still Babylon and it’s not the kingdom of God.”
Until next time, may God bless you and keep you.
As we approach the 4th of July holiday, the decision is once again before me as a preacher: how do I address this national holiday, if at all? This has led to several weeks of questioning, praying, and thinking. Here are some assorted thoughts/questions/options:
- I could decide not to address the holiday at all in my preaching. I'm pretty sure that I could not get away with ignoring the holiday altogether in my congregation. There is an impulse in me to not pay a bit of attention to this national, secular holiday. To simply preach the lectionary, choose some good, strong hymns of the church and let my people celebrate in ways and times of their choosing. That option has theological and ecclesiological merit.
- I could simply give in to the patriotic impulse and focus the whole service on America and the holiday. Actually, that's not really an option. And I really couldn't do that. We're not in church to praise and worship America. We're not in church to praise and worship God for America. It's not ultimately about America. We come to church not to serve country, but to serve and worship God. And I do believe that the choice, in this instance, is that stark.
- Of course, as is usually the case, I choose a middle way. I believe several things about my task as preacher:
○ My focus is God and what God is revealing to me/us in Scripture.
○ I must tell the truth, to the best of my ability and using my best understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit in preparation and delivery.
○ While the desires of the congregation are not my primary concern in preaching, I believe that my preaching should be relevant to the lives of my parishoners and I should also be concerned with what my church is concerned with.
In this particular case, the holiday will be on everyone's mind when they come to church Sunday. I can either work against that by ignoring it, indulge that by simply echoing empty patriotic platitudes, or I can draw that through the prism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So my plan is to be truthful about being a Christian and being an American, as best I can with my limited understanding, through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I begin to prepare for my sermon in earnest, I have been pondering the Scriptures that I have chosen for this Sunday.
Mark 12:13-17
13Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it." 16And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" They answered, "The emperor's." 17Jesus said to them, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's , and to God the things that are God's." And they were utterly amazed at him.
Philippians 3:18-21
18For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.
In the Mark passage, the Pharisees attempt to trap Jesus in a false dilemma: which is it, Jesus, Caesar or God? Jesus easily dismisses their attempt at entrapping him by stating that there are things that properly belong to Caesar (in this case, money marked with the image of the Emperor) and there are those things that properly belong to God. This leads to a question: can we demarcate things that do not belong to God? What is the theological justification of "private property", especially in light of Acts 2:44 ("All who believed were together and had all things in common.") As I understand it, we (Christians) like to live as if there are aspects of our lives that we can deem as "secular" or "public" - places where our commitment to Jesus Christ is not determinative or definitive. Are those areas where another role or aspect of our identity trump our identity as Christians? Paul, in the Philippians passage, would answer emphatically: No! If Jesus is Lord, really and truly Lord, then He is Lord over everything in my life and every aspect of my life must be understood in light of Jesus' lordship. Obviously, this means that if I take seriously the Lordship of Jesus (or, to put it another way, if I take seriously my status as a "citizen of heaven") then I cannot place my identity as an American in a place of prominence over and above my identity as a Christian, ever.
And here is where we must be truthful and clear. Many American Christians make little or no effort in thinking about possible places of conflict or contestation between being an American and a Christian. Most middle class American Christians have not given sufficient thought (in my humble opinion) to the differences and distances between the Kingdom of God and the nation/empire/idea of America. Consequently, there is a lot of rhetoric about the U.S. being a "godly nation" (or perhaps this only applies to certain Americans, if you live in a city or vote Democratic, in the minds and rhetoric of some, you don't fit the mold) or we talk about how America was founded as a "Christian nation" (not exactly historically accurate). Here's my disclaimer: I love this country, its history, its ideals, its messiness, and its complexity. I am fascinated by the American experiment and our bumbling towards some semblance of justice and liberty by fits and starts. We have failed many times and still do, but it has been spectacular (in the sense of this whole thing being a spectacle).
As much as I love this country and its history, I do not have "faith in America", I have faith in God. This is a sinful nation filled with sinners. Like every other nation that exists or has ever existed. America is not specially blessed, it is not chosen, it is not the "new Israel", whatever that means. We err, at times grievously and at great cost to millions across our world. We over-consume and are too often careless about the costs of our consumption. We are petulant and hubristic. We will face the judgment, like every other nation. I'll close up this posting with a quote from Tony Campolo: "Don’t get me wrong, I love the United States of America. It’s the best Babylon on the face of the earth, but it’s still Babylon and it’s not the kingdom of God.”
Until next time, may God bless you and keep you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)