Recently in Christianity Category
At http://www.sandersweb.net/bible/verse.php a random Bible verse will appear.
This morning I got II Thessalonians 3:3: "3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one".
The footnote allows that "the evil one" may also be translated "evil".
Contemporary ideas about good and evil often boil down to "doing what is right" and "opposing what is right" (Axis of Evil) or pointless cruelty (in so many movies where evil is personified in a car, a man in dreams, or possession by a demon).
But this is a modern idea. Evil once meant harm (and its opposite, good, a benefit). So if we look at the scripture again, it might read:
I have often heard people - especially Christians - testify to how God has protected them. When bad things happen, the response is sometimes "God is testing me" or "God will turn this to good". Sometimes it's the more troubling "I didn't pray hard enough", "I didn't have enough faith", or "God is punishing me for what I did".
Why would God be testing us? (Psalms 17:3) Doesn't God know our hearts? (Psalms 44:21, 139:1-4; I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:15) Some argue that we are tested so that we know our own hearts, and perhaps this is true - I know I have often learned what I really value in cases where I lost something trivial. But in cases where someone has lost a child to disease or violence, this argument is of little consolation.
Others suggest that such trials temper us as steel is tempered in heat, making us stronger. This, too, can be valid - I have learned to deal with some kinds of pain by repeated exposure. Yet we often see people struggling with hardship after hardship, without time to recover. Can a steady stream of trouble be God's way of strengthening us?
The last three responses I mentioned blame the sufferer. I find these the weakest of all responses, though they seem to strongly advocate for God's righteousness.
Most of us have heard the story of Job, who was beset by trouble as a test from God. We talk about the patience of Job, but a large portion of the book is taken up by three men - called friends - who rebuke Job for the sins he must have committed. A fourth person arrives later in the book to join in the accusation. Job protests his innocence, and God arrives late in the story to say Job was right and the other men wrong.
A large portion of the book of Ecclesiastes deals with the fact that wrongdoers often prosper and those who are righteous often suffer.
So how can we take this verse from Thessalonians seriously, knowing that God shines the sun and brings the rain on both those who do right and those who do wrong? (Matthew 5:45) Against what harm, against what evil are we protected?
One way is to say "well, it could be worse". We can imagine how much worse things would be without God's protection. But that makes God little more than a leaky umbrella - partial protection against the problems of life.
Another way is to have faith that, no matter what happens in this life, a better life in the future is safeguarded. Jesus spoke of treasure in heaven (Matthew 3:19-21; Luke 12:33, 18:22). The convenience of this viewpoint is that it is untestable in this lifetime, so no one can prove it wrong.
So how can we read this verse? How does God's protection work?
I have to admit, I have no easy answer to this one. All my answers seem either inadequate (God protects somewhat) or some form of rationalization - not much better than Job's friends.
Know that, in this life, whether you believe or not, whether you do right or not, you will have gains and you will have losses. You will have joy and you will have pain. Like the name of the tree in Eden (Genesis 3), you will know good and evil.
If you believe in the resurrection, however, you have hope for something better. And if you have a community of believers around you, you will have the support of people who love you. And, for me, that is what Christianity is about.
This morning I got II Thessalonians 3:3: "3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one".
The footnote allows that "the evil one" may also be translated "evil".
Contemporary ideas about good and evil often boil down to "doing what is right" and "opposing what is right" (Axis of Evil) or pointless cruelty (in so many movies where evil is personified in a car, a man in dreams, or possession by a demon).
But this is a modern idea. Evil once meant harm (and its opposite, good, a benefit). So if we look at the scripture again, it might read:
3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against harm.Is this true?
I have often heard people - especially Christians - testify to how God has protected them. When bad things happen, the response is sometimes "God is testing me" or "God will turn this to good". Sometimes it's the more troubling "I didn't pray hard enough", "I didn't have enough faith", or "God is punishing me for what I did".
Why would God be testing us? (Psalms 17:3) Doesn't God know our hearts? (Psalms 44:21, 139:1-4; I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:15) Some argue that we are tested so that we know our own hearts, and perhaps this is true - I know I have often learned what I really value in cases where I lost something trivial. But in cases where someone has lost a child to disease or violence, this argument is of little consolation.
Others suggest that such trials temper us as steel is tempered in heat, making us stronger. This, too, can be valid - I have learned to deal with some kinds of pain by repeated exposure. Yet we often see people struggling with hardship after hardship, without time to recover. Can a steady stream of trouble be God's way of strengthening us?
The last three responses I mentioned blame the sufferer. I find these the weakest of all responses, though they seem to strongly advocate for God's righteousness.
Most of us have heard the story of Job, who was beset by trouble as a test from God. We talk about the patience of Job, but a large portion of the book is taken up by three men - called friends - who rebuke Job for the sins he must have committed. A fourth person arrives later in the book to join in the accusation. Job protests his innocence, and God arrives late in the story to say Job was right and the other men wrong.
A large portion of the book of Ecclesiastes deals with the fact that wrongdoers often prosper and those who are righteous often suffer.
So how can we take this verse from Thessalonians seriously, knowing that God shines the sun and brings the rain on both those who do right and those who do wrong? (Matthew 5:45) Against what harm, against what evil are we protected?
One way is to say "well, it could be worse". We can imagine how much worse things would be without God's protection. But that makes God little more than a leaky umbrella - partial protection against the problems of life.
Another way is to have faith that, no matter what happens in this life, a better life in the future is safeguarded. Jesus spoke of treasure in heaven (Matthew 3:19-21; Luke 12:33, 18:22). The convenience of this viewpoint is that it is untestable in this lifetime, so no one can prove it wrong.
So how can we read this verse? How does God's protection work?
I have to admit, I have no easy answer to this one. All my answers seem either inadequate (God protects somewhat) or some form of rationalization - not much better than Job's friends.
Know that, in this life, whether you believe or not, whether you do right or not, you will have gains and you will have losses. You will have joy and you will have pain. Like the name of the tree in Eden (Genesis 3), you will know good and evil.
If you believe in the resurrection, however, you have hope for something better. And if you have a community of believers around you, you will have the support of people who love you. And, for me, that is what Christianity is about.
December 28 is one of the liturgical dates for the feat day of the innocents (others are December 27 and 29). This marks the story of Herod killing infants in order to end the threat of "the newborn king" (Jesus) as told in the second chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew:
Can it be only to fulfill the prophecy?
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the idea of killing an infant Jesus nor any other infants who may end up as collateral damage in Herod's insecurity. But if the point of Jesus is the crucifixion, we have no need for the life of Jesus, and especially not the ministry of Jesus.
The story of the massacre of the innocents tells us that Jesus had something to do instead of, or in addition to, dying. When we focus merely on the death, or even the death and resurrection, of Jesus, we miss the point of Jesus' life.
And if there is a point to Jesus surviving to adulthood, and to His healing the sick, and his preaching justice for the poor and oppressed, then there is probably a point to our living to adulthood as well. We may not see it - sometimes we may despair that there is such a point - but I believe there is a reason why we're here.
On this day, I will mourn those who die as infants - in first century Palestine and in the entire world in the twenty first century - due to senseless violence, hunger, and neglect. I will be grateful that I have been spared, and seek out what my ministry - my reason for surviving to adulthood - may be. I will look at the example of Jesus, who was not merely faithful in dying, but was faithful in living as well. I will examine who I serve, and make corrections as best I can.
16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men,* he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.* 17Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:Jesus escapes this slaughter because his parents had been warned:
18 'A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.' (NRSV)
But this makes me wonder: if the point of Jesus' birth is substitutionary atonement, that is:
13 Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' 14Then Joseph* got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, (NRSV)
- God dies as an infinite payment for the sins of finite humans against an infinite God, or
- A perfect human (Jesus) dies as payment for the sins of a perfect human (Adam), or
- Jesus dies to trick Satan into taking a blameless person, who he can't keep, and thereby rescuing all who Satan has taken, or
- any number of other schemes in which Jesus dies for our sins
Can it be only to fulfill the prophecy?
Isn't prophecy merely to tell of the times (or sometimes the future), rather than for events to make prophecy true? Surely this could have been omitted from prophecy and Jesus killed with the rest of the children.
15and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I have called my son.'
Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the idea of killing an infant Jesus nor any other infants who may end up as collateral damage in Herod's insecurity. But if the point of Jesus is the crucifixion, we have no need for the life of Jesus, and especially not the ministry of Jesus.
The story of the massacre of the innocents tells us that Jesus had something to do instead of, or in addition to, dying. When we focus merely on the death, or even the death and resurrection, of Jesus, we miss the point of Jesus' life.
And if there is a point to Jesus surviving to adulthood, and to His healing the sick, and his preaching justice for the poor and oppressed, then there is probably a point to our living to adulthood as well. We may not see it - sometimes we may despair that there is such a point - but I believe there is a reason why we're here.
On this day, I will mourn those who die as infants - in first century Palestine and in the entire world in the twenty first century - due to senseless violence, hunger, and neglect. I will be grateful that I have been spared, and seek out what my ministry - my reason for surviving to adulthood - may be. I will look at the example of Jesus, who was not merely faithful in dying, but was faithful in living as well. I will examine who I serve, and make corrections as best I can.
As Christmas approaches, we see images of the infant Jesus everywhere. We hear and read "Jesus is the reason for the season". And why not? Who doesn't love a cute baby who never cries:
We also observe Good Friday, which people like my professor and friend Ted Jennings consider the most important Holy Day in the Christian Calendar. This marks the suffering and death of Jesus. I won't go so far as to say Christians like this image (although some do seem to have an affection for the sacrifice), but it's one with which we've grown somewhat comfortable.
We do celebrate Easter, although not with the commercial fervor with which we mark the traditional birthday of Jesus. And why not? A risen Son of God is something to celebrate indeed.
Most of us don't mark the ascension of Jesus. Do you know when it is? I had to look it up. It's forty days after Easter.
What do all these ideas of Jesus have in common? They're non-threatening.
Baby Jesus doesn't speak (and, to many minds, doesn't even cry) and is lying in a manger - no worries there. Dying Jesus is nailed to a cross - He can't come after you.
The Risen Jesus does walk and talk, but doesn't hang around long. He makes a brief appearance with Mary of Magdala (and various other people depending on which Gospel you're reading) in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. He shows up on the road to Emmaus in Mark 16 and Luke 24, but doesn't stay for the whole walk. And he makes a brief dinner appearance in Luke 24 and John 20. This is a Jesus who won't bother you for long
Of course, we have the ascended Jesus now, who is safely in Heaven, far away from us.
And we do sometimes talk about Jesus' ministry, but usually we talk about the miracles.
We don't, however, want to be confronted by the social activist Jesus. We certainly don't observe a holiday for social activist Jesus.
Social activist Jesus shakes up the social order. He tells a rich young man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. That makes us anxious, because we (and I am definitely including myself here) aren't really excited about giving up our security and comfort to help others.
And when Jesus performs miracles, there's usually another aspect that's missed.
Sure, there's the turning water into wine at Cana, but that's just being a good Jewish boy and obeying his mom. And there's walking on water, and telling people where to catch fish. There's also plucking a coin out of the mouth of a fish, but that starts to look like contemporary illusionists.
But Jesus performs healing miracles, and what a lot of people miss is that these miracles usually change the status of a person in society.
Afflicted by demons? Demons driven out and person is back among society. Could we do the same for the mentally ill?
Deaf or blind? Healed and the person is back among the townspeople. Could we also remove barriers that hold back those without hearing or sight?
Unclean due to leprosy or hemorrhage? Healed and the person is touchable again. Can we reach out with human touch to people with AIDS and other diseases?
One of my favorites is the paralyzed man at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26). The place is so packed that no one else can get in, so the man's friends cut a hole in the roof and lower him in to Jesus. Here Jesus shows what he's up to, and it's where people really get upset: Jesus tells the man "your sins are forgiven". The religious leaders are aghast - no one can forgive sin but God.
But what are we really talking about here?
Remember that Jesus was asked, regarding the man born blind, whose sin was the cause - the man's or his parents. In first century Palestine, many believed that physical issues were due to sin. But sin also kept people out of society. When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he was overruling the judgment that the man must be kept out of society because he was paralyzed.
After the leaders took such offense, Jesus healed the man's paralysis - not so much so that the man could walk (which was good) or so he could reenter society (which Jesus had already conferred on him), but because society could not get the idea that a paralyzed man belonged in society.
So what is social activist Jesus about? He threatens the status quo. He works toward dismantling the social structures that keep people in their places. He redistributes wealth and power from those who have much to those who have little.
I want a social activist Jesus holiday. Let's pick a date and start working on the celebration.
"The little Lord Jesus no crying he makes" - Away in a MangerThere are some, like my friends and former classmates Tom Ryberg and David Weasley, who take issue with this idea of a silent infant, but that's an argument for another time. My point here is that we like the idea of a quiet, peaceful baby, and how much better if it's the Son of God!
"Holy Infant so tender and mild" - Silent Night
We also observe Good Friday, which people like my professor and friend Ted Jennings consider the most important Holy Day in the Christian Calendar. This marks the suffering and death of Jesus. I won't go so far as to say Christians like this image (although some do seem to have an affection for the sacrifice), but it's one with which we've grown somewhat comfortable.
We do celebrate Easter, although not with the commercial fervor with which we mark the traditional birthday of Jesus. And why not? A risen Son of God is something to celebrate indeed.
Most of us don't mark the ascension of Jesus. Do you know when it is? I had to look it up. It's forty days after Easter.
What do all these ideas of Jesus have in common? They're non-threatening.
Baby Jesus doesn't speak (and, to many minds, doesn't even cry) and is lying in a manger - no worries there. Dying Jesus is nailed to a cross - He can't come after you.
The Risen Jesus does walk and talk, but doesn't hang around long. He makes a brief appearance with Mary of Magdala (and various other people depending on which Gospel you're reading) in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. He shows up on the road to Emmaus in Mark 16 and Luke 24, but doesn't stay for the whole walk. And he makes a brief dinner appearance in Luke 24 and John 20. This is a Jesus who won't bother you for long
Of course, we have the ascended Jesus now, who is safely in Heaven, far away from us.
And we do sometimes talk about Jesus' ministry, but usually we talk about the miracles.
We don't, however, want to be confronted by the social activist Jesus. We certainly don't observe a holiday for social activist Jesus.
Social activist Jesus shakes up the social order. He tells a rich young man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. That makes us anxious, because we (and I am definitely including myself here) aren't really excited about giving up our security and comfort to help others.
And when Jesus performs miracles, there's usually another aspect that's missed.
Sure, there's the turning water into wine at Cana, but that's just being a good Jewish boy and obeying his mom. And there's walking on water, and telling people where to catch fish. There's also plucking a coin out of the mouth of a fish, but that starts to look like contemporary illusionists.
But Jesus performs healing miracles, and what a lot of people miss is that these miracles usually change the status of a person in society.
Afflicted by demons? Demons driven out and person is back among society. Could we do the same for the mentally ill?
Deaf or blind? Healed and the person is back among the townspeople. Could we also remove barriers that hold back those without hearing or sight?
Unclean due to leprosy or hemorrhage? Healed and the person is touchable again. Can we reach out with human touch to people with AIDS and other diseases?
One of my favorites is the paralyzed man at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26). The place is so packed that no one else can get in, so the man's friends cut a hole in the roof and lower him in to Jesus. Here Jesus shows what he's up to, and it's where people really get upset: Jesus tells the man "your sins are forgiven". The religious leaders are aghast - no one can forgive sin but God.
But what are we really talking about here?
Remember that Jesus was asked, regarding the man born blind, whose sin was the cause - the man's or his parents. In first century Palestine, many believed that physical issues were due to sin. But sin also kept people out of society. When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he was overruling the judgment that the man must be kept out of society because he was paralyzed.
After the leaders took such offense, Jesus healed the man's paralysis - not so much so that the man could walk (which was good) or so he could reenter society (which Jesus had already conferred on him), but because society could not get the idea that a paralyzed man belonged in society.
So what is social activist Jesus about? He threatens the status quo. He works toward dismantling the social structures that keep people in their places. He redistributes wealth and power from those who have much to those who have little.
I want a social activist Jesus holiday. Let's pick a date and start working on the celebration.
Julie Holm has an excellent article on how going to seminary is ministry.
It was after being recommended for in care that I was asked to be on the leadership group (of 3) that supported 40 ministry teams. I was the only nominee for the vacant position. I was already serving on a number of our church's ~90 ministry teams. Churches have few people willing to take leadership roles (the 80/20 or 90/10 rule: 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people). Those few who will are expected to, because the alternative is empty leadership positions.
Financial support of seminarians is an interesting issue. The two congregations I've been with both struggle to pay their staff - one pays a full time pastor plus part time staff positions: youth minister, music minister, accompanist, facilities manager, church secretary, and cleaning staff. The other pays only a pastor (full time) and part time accompanist. There's no money left to try to help someone through seminary (despite what the MoM may say).
And why should they? It's not like they'll be the beneficiaries of the education. The seminarian will likely go pastor some other church or do some other ministry. Why give money to help someone else's ministry, especially when our own ministries are struggling?
Perhaps the fundamental problem is that, for many, the church has been relegated to an hour on Sunday morning. For some, this is clarified to "on days when none of the kids has an activity like skating or baseball Sunday morning and when we weren't out too late Saturday night" (I know a paid minister who has to skip even some large celebrations - read Christmas - due to conflicts with primary job, secondary job, and kids).
It should be no surprise that paid ministers, seminarians, and lay leaders are burning out. While 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, the other 80% of the people are expecting more.
I don't have an answer to this problem.
It was after being recommended for in care that I was asked to be on the leadership group (of 3) that supported 40 ministry teams. I was the only nominee for the vacant position. I was already serving on a number of our church's ~90 ministry teams. Churches have few people willing to take leadership roles (the 80/20 or 90/10 rule: 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people). Those few who will are expected to, because the alternative is empty leadership positions.
Financial support of seminarians is an interesting issue. The two congregations I've been with both struggle to pay their staff - one pays a full time pastor plus part time staff positions: youth minister, music minister, accompanist, facilities manager, church secretary, and cleaning staff. The other pays only a pastor (full time) and part time accompanist. There's no money left to try to help someone through seminary (despite what the MoM may say).
And why should they? It's not like they'll be the beneficiaries of the education. The seminarian will likely go pastor some other church or do some other ministry. Why give money to help someone else's ministry, especially when our own ministries are struggling?
Perhaps the fundamental problem is that, for many, the church has been relegated to an hour on Sunday morning. For some, this is clarified to "on days when none of the kids has an activity like skating or baseball Sunday morning and when we weren't out too late Saturday night" (I know a paid minister who has to skip even some large celebrations - read Christmas - due to conflicts with primary job, secondary job, and kids).
It should be no surprise that paid ministers, seminarians, and lay leaders are burning out. While 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, the other 80% of the people are expecting more.
I don't have an answer to this problem.
I'm not objecting to theological study, but I'm wondering about our various creeds and catechisms. Christianity seems to do a lot of arguing over who is right, and some of it gets pretty specific, down to what the bread is and what should be in the cup.
Churches split over theological disagreements. Sometimes believers will tell other believers "you are not Christian" over some of these matters.
I wonder how much doctrine is actually required.
For the Ethiopian eunuch, it could be explained during a chariot ride:
There are many question about who God is, how and why the universe was created, and at what time and in what sort of space should we worship, and these are good and interesting questions on which we can disagree as we search for answers.
But I suspect the essentials of what it mean to be Christian are fairly simple. Perhaps something we can share in a car ride.27282930313233343536383940
Churches split over theological disagreements. Sometimes believers will tell other believers "you are not Christian" over some of these matters.
I wonder how much doctrine is actually required.
For the Ethiopian eunuch, it could be explained during a chariot ride:
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.How much information could have been exchanged? It's hard to know for certain, but I don't think it was a complicated theology.
Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over to this chariot and join it." So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.
Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth." The eunuch asked Philip, "About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"
Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?" He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
- Acts 8:28-39, NRSV
There are many question about who God is, how and why the universe was created, and at what time and in what sort of space should we worship, and these are good and interesting questions on which we can disagree as we search for answers.
But I suspect the essentials of what it mean to be Christian are fairly simple. Perhaps something we can share in a car ride.27282930313233343536383940
Are you an ambassador for heaven?
OK, my readers are all over the place theologically. Some people don't believe in an afterlife, much less heaven. Many don't know for sure whether they're going to heaven (though I'm sure a few are certain). I don't think any of my readers are descended from heaven, but who knows?
For those who believe in an afterlife in paradise, and especially those who tell others about heaven:
Are you the kind of person with whom someone would like to spend eternity?
I have a tendency to be sullen, and maybe I'm not a great ambassador for heaven. It's something I'm working on. I'm not saying this is easy.
There are other types of behaviors that can be troublesome as well. Spending eternity with millions or billions of intimidating people doesn't sound much like heaven. People who point out every mistake aren't a vision of Paradise. Same for selfish people, and uncaring people, and lots of others.
So while we're here, if we believe in a hereafter, maybe we can start working on being the kind of people with whom spending time would be heavenly. Then, when we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be.
And maybe we'll help create a little heaven on earth.
OK, my readers are all over the place theologically. Some people don't believe in an afterlife, much less heaven. Many don't know for sure whether they're going to heaven (though I'm sure a few are certain). I don't think any of my readers are descended from heaven, but who knows?
For those who believe in an afterlife in paradise, and especially those who tell others about heaven:
Are you the kind of person with whom someone would like to spend eternity?
I have a tendency to be sullen, and maybe I'm not a great ambassador for heaven. It's something I'm working on. I'm not saying this is easy.
There are other types of behaviors that can be troublesome as well. Spending eternity with millions or billions of intimidating people doesn't sound much like heaven. People who point out every mistake aren't a vision of Paradise. Same for selfish people, and uncaring people, and lots of others.
So while we're here, if we believe in a hereafter, maybe we can start working on being the kind of people with whom spending time would be heavenly. Then, when we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be.
And maybe we'll help create a little heaven on earth.
I've read the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" a bunch in the past few years. For a person who is affiliated with a church, association, conference, seminary, and national settings who call claim that "God Is Still Speaking", I suppose I should be open to hearing God's still-speaking voice in those around me.
Yet the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" seems to always follow some sort of judgment:
"You can't be both gay and Christian. I'm not saying this; God is."
"A woman cannot be a pastor. I'm not saying this; God is."
"If you do not believe the Bible is 100% true, your faith is failing. I'm not saying this; God is."
I'm coming to believe that what's really being said is "I'm not taking responsibility for this interpretation" or "don't be upset with me, be upset with God".
I have a couple of problems with this idea.
First, I wish people who had the courage to call out other on their sins would have the courage to own their interpretation of scripture.
And before anyone interjects "but I don't interpret!", yes, you do. Do you believe elders and deacons must be married (husband of one wife: I Tim 3:2, I Tim 3:12, Titus 1:6)? Do you eschew pork, shrimp, lobster, oysters, and catfish (Lev 11, Deut 14)? If you say "it really means" or "that doesn't apply to me because", you are interpreting. Interpreting isn't inherently bad. Interpreting is inevitable. I can't even say "I like that person" without your interpreting whether I mean "I'm sexually attracted to that person", "I find that person friendly", or "I agree with that person's beliefs".
I respect the right to speak ones mind, but please admit the mind is involved. Even when just repeating what was read or what someone said is in the Bible, there is a choice to accept that understanding and to repeat it. Have the courage to say this is a choice. We are not God's puppets.
Second, and more disturbing to me, is the making of God into the unseen punisher. By using this phrase to criticize in God's name, we make God an entirely unlikable being: "I personally don't care if you do that, but God is going to punish you for that." And we wonder why atheists and agnostics are not flocking to our churches to worship God.
We all have different beliefs about who God is, how we came to be, God's relationship to us, and what our relationship to each others should be. I may strongly believe a thing, but you may just as strongly believe something different. If we're going to argue, let's not take God's name in vain while doing so.
I'm not saying this; God is.
Yet the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" seems to always follow some sort of judgment:
"You can't be both gay and Christian. I'm not saying this; God is."
"A woman cannot be a pastor. I'm not saying this; God is."
"If you do not believe the Bible is 100% true, your faith is failing. I'm not saying this; God is."
I'm coming to believe that what's really being said is "I'm not taking responsibility for this interpretation" or "don't be upset with me, be upset with God".
I have a couple of problems with this idea.
First, I wish people who had the courage to call out other on their sins would have the courage to own their interpretation of scripture.
And before anyone interjects "but I don't interpret!", yes, you do. Do you believe elders and deacons must be married (husband of one wife: I Tim 3:2, I Tim 3:12, Titus 1:6)? Do you eschew pork, shrimp, lobster, oysters, and catfish (Lev 11, Deut 14)? If you say "it really means" or "that doesn't apply to me because", you are interpreting. Interpreting isn't inherently bad. Interpreting is inevitable. I can't even say "I like that person" without your interpreting whether I mean "I'm sexually attracted to that person", "I find that person friendly", or "I agree with that person's beliefs".
I respect the right to speak ones mind, but please admit the mind is involved. Even when just repeating what was read or what someone said is in the Bible, there is a choice to accept that understanding and to repeat it. Have the courage to say this is a choice. We are not God's puppets.
Second, and more disturbing to me, is the making of God into the unseen punisher. By using this phrase to criticize in God's name, we make God an entirely unlikable being: "I personally don't care if you do that, but God is going to punish you for that." And we wonder why atheists and agnostics are not flocking to our churches to worship God.
We all have different beliefs about who God is, how we came to be, God's relationship to us, and what our relationship to each others should be. I may strongly believe a thing, but you may just as strongly believe something different. If we're going to argue, let's not take God's name in vain while doing so.
I'm not saying this; God is.
I know that, historically, the threat of Hell has been a powerful tool in bringing people to the church. But I suspect it doesn't work so well anymore.
For those who do not believe in the supernatural at all, the threat of Hell probably sounds something like this:
For those who believe there is more to existence than what they see, is the threat of Hell working? If an evangelist is a messenger of the Gospel, or good news, then how is "you're a sinner and are going to Hell" either good (who wants to be told they're going to be punished forever) or news (when this is preached via television, radio, film, book, and billboard)? Yes, I know the good news follows - you can be saved - but if you have to deliver the bad news of damnation to preach the good news of salvation, a lot of people are going to opt for not listening at all.
More importantly to me, however, is how the early church attracted people. People seemed to be attracted to how Christians cared for each other and community. I don't see a lot of Helfire preached in Acts.
I'm wondering whether that's what we ought to be doing: preaching the good news of capital L Love. And in preaching, I mean first living the Love between us: our family members, our congregational members and friends, across congregations, associations, conferences, diocese, synods, and denominations. If we can first practice that Love and concern between each other, and then expand that circle so it becomes so large that everyone is within its perimeter, people will come to see us as a loving people. Then we can talk about a god whose Love is even greater than ours, and maybe we're starting the work Jesus called us to.
I don't recall the citation for the Bible verse that said "Go ye into all the world and tell people they're damned". If there is such a verse, let me know. Until then, I will take up the version of the Great Commission that says I am to preach the Gospel, the Good Word, that everyone is loved.
For those who do not believe in the supernatural at all, the threat of Hell probably sounds something like this:
There is a place of eternal torment (I can't prove this scientifically). That's where you're going after you die (I can't prove this scientifically). But there's another pace you can go where everything is wonderful (I can't prove this scientifically). You will go there if (you believe in Jesus/give your life to Jesus/are baptized/stop drinking/stop being gay/stop believing in evolution/go to my church/tithe/etc.)I don't think the threat of Hell is very powerful for those who don't believe in an afterlife.
For those who believe there is more to existence than what they see, is the threat of Hell working? If an evangelist is a messenger of the Gospel, or good news, then how is "you're a sinner and are going to Hell" either good (who wants to be told they're going to be punished forever) or news (when this is preached via television, radio, film, book, and billboard)? Yes, I know the good news follows - you can be saved - but if you have to deliver the bad news of damnation to preach the good news of salvation, a lot of people are going to opt for not listening at all.
More importantly to me, however, is how the early church attracted people. People seemed to be attracted to how Christians cared for each other and community. I don't see a lot of Helfire preached in Acts.
I'm wondering whether that's what we ought to be doing: preaching the good news of capital L Love. And in preaching, I mean first living the Love between us: our family members, our congregational members and friends, across congregations, associations, conferences, diocese, synods, and denominations. If we can first practice that Love and concern between each other, and then expand that circle so it becomes so large that everyone is within its perimeter, people will come to see us as a loving people. Then we can talk about a god whose Love is even greater than ours, and maybe we're starting the work Jesus called us to.
I don't recall the citation for the Bible verse that said "Go ye into all the world and tell people they're damned". If there is such a verse, let me know. Until then, I will take up the version of the Great Commission that says I am to preach the Gospel, the Good Word, that everyone is loved.
It's Easter Sunday, and churches across the world proclaim "He is risen! He is risen indeed!"
We can talk about the empty tomb as proof of the resurrection of Jesus, and then argue about whether it is a physical, spiritual, or metaphorical resurrection. We can talk about whether the resurrection means Jesus' triumph over death, over evil, over Satan, or an illustration of the promise of our own resurrection.
I think thousands of other preachers have "He is risen" covered. And so, my contrarian nature leads me to talk instead about the now available tomb.
Most tombs are single-use. You put someone in, and the tomb remains occupied. In some cases, there may be a crypt or plot where the remains of various family members will reside. But - unless the body is exhumed and moved elsewhere - graves usually stay occupied.
But here we have the unusual case of a tomb left vacant. What are we to do with a used tomb?
The practical thing is to put the remains of someone else in it. (You don't really want to make a former tomb into a restaurant.) So who will we bury in the tomb?
I have a suggestion.
We can bury ourselves.
Progressive and Liberal Christians don't often use the phrase "born again", but it is based in scripture: the Gospel according to John has Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and I Peter 1:22-25 says:
Fearfully, I make a suggestion that condemns me: we become dead to our own self-interest and seek to carry out Christ's command of love for others - especially the hungry, thirsty, strangers (homeless), naked (vulnerable) and imprisoned. For me, it means caring less about where I am going to eat and more about how I am helping to feed others. It means caring less about the declining value of my home and more about the homeless. It means caring less about my job security and more about people who are abused by family members, teachers, clergy, and others. It means caring less about my freedom to write a blog entry and more about those who - rightly or wrongly - are imprisoned and how to restore them to community.
I have to put my own selfish person into the tomb.
All is not lost, however, for from this death, a new person (with God's help) will rise: one who is more concerned with fellow human beings, one who takes risks, one who has faith that God will guide her along the way.
I pray for the courage to put my frightened, anxious self into the tomb.
We can talk about the empty tomb as proof of the resurrection of Jesus, and then argue about whether it is a physical, spiritual, or metaphorical resurrection. We can talk about whether the resurrection means Jesus' triumph over death, over evil, over Satan, or an illustration of the promise of our own resurrection.
I think thousands of other preachers have "He is risen" covered. And so, my contrarian nature leads me to talk instead about the now available tomb.
Most tombs are single-use. You put someone in, and the tomb remains occupied. In some cases, there may be a crypt or plot where the remains of various family members will reside. But - unless the body is exhumed and moved elsewhere - graves usually stay occupied.
But here we have the unusual case of a tomb left vacant. What are we to do with a used tomb?
The practical thing is to put the remains of someone else in it. (You don't really want to make a former tomb into a restaurant.) So who will we bury in the tomb?
I have a suggestion.
We can bury ourselves.
Progressive and Liberal Christians don't often use the phrase "born again", but it is based in scripture: the Gospel according to John has Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and I Peter 1:22-25 says:
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For,So what, in a progressive, liberal context, does it mean to be born again?
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you
Fearfully, I make a suggestion that condemns me: we become dead to our own self-interest and seek to carry out Christ's command of love for others - especially the hungry, thirsty, strangers (homeless), naked (vulnerable) and imprisoned. For me, it means caring less about where I am going to eat and more about how I am helping to feed others. It means caring less about the declining value of my home and more about the homeless. It means caring less about my job security and more about people who are abused by family members, teachers, clergy, and others. It means caring less about my freedom to write a blog entry and more about those who - rightly or wrongly - are imprisoned and how to restore them to community.
I have to put my own selfish person into the tomb.
All is not lost, however, for from this death, a new person (with God's help) will rise: one who is more concerned with fellow human beings, one who takes risks, one who has faith that God will guide her along the way.
I pray for the courage to put my frightened, anxious self into the tomb.
After the events of September 11, 2001, there were some who associated Islam with terrorism. There were some who asked "Where are all the so-called 'good' Muslims? Why aren't they condemning these attacks?" Of course, there were many Muslims who condemned the attacks, but the faithful - a minority in the United States of America - were not heard above the outrage of the majority.
Now we have a report of an alleged plot by a Christian cell:
As a majority, the silence so far has been deafening.
Now we have a report of an alleged plot by a Christian cell:
DETROIT -- Nine alleged members of a Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral -- all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government. - APSo the logical next question is:
"Where are all the so-called 'good' Christians? Why aren't they condemning these attacks?"Let us see the Christian churches take a stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, condemning this type of behavior as antithetical to the way of Jesus. Let us hear the united voices of the faithful.
As a majority, the silence so far has been deafening.
