Are You Really Excited for Christmas?

Below are my thoughts for my Christmas Eve sermon. The text that I am using is Psalm 96 - enjoy!

MAIN IDEA – Christmas Eve is one of those services when one is supposed to bring out the “big gun,” have the multi-brass choir, the live animals, the angelic children’s choir, and every other gimmick that you can put your hand on. On the one hand I see this as a gimmick and have a deal of disdain towards such an approach, on the other hand, there is a level of truth to the praise. Yet why do we praise? I don’t think I’m just being cynical when I say that we offer the upbeat, powerful service because people expect us to do so, and we want people to be pleased. We do it because we hope that maybe one of those C and E Christians will be inspired to start to attend our church on a regular basis – we do it because we are desperate.

So I have always had a certain amount of skepticism towards such manufactured joy on high holy days (Easter is included in this). Yet on the other hand, this is an amazing part of the Christian story, the salvation story that I embrace. There is a level of necessary praise that calls to be embraced when I am authentic and honest not only about what Christ’s birth means for Christianity but what Christ’s birth means to me.

The Psalm offers a form to follow in praise. It almost authentic the praise that I want to embrace without becoming fake. I hope I can embrace the steadfast trust and faith that the Psalm proclaims (v. 10 – “Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is King! The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.’”). I also hope that I can embrace the promise that the Psalm proclaims (v. 13 “…he is coming, for he is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with his truth.”).

Free me, Lord, from the expectations of others and allow me to embrace my own joy, to incarnate my celebration in my life as this Psalm is driving me to do. May my worship be honest and true to you.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – There seems to be a couple of things going on here. One, we are called to praise with all creation. This speaks to a kind of theological anthropology and natural theology – perhaps suggest that all are drawn towards to goodness and grace of God, even creation itself.

We are given the idea that God is in control, but not in a predestination kind of way. It seems that God’s control is in how God reacts to and is involved with the people. God will judge with righteousness and equity. When we are moved to distrust of the powers, principalities, and systems, we are drawn to trust in God.

Finally the idea of salvation as a now and a not yet. God is coming even as God has come into the world through the birth of Christ. The celebration of Christmas is never fully over until Christ returns.

Christmas Overload!

Here are my thoughts on the sermon for this week (12/19). The scripture passages are Isaiah 7:10-16 and Romans 1:1-7

MAIN IDEA – The signs of Christmas are overwhelming. They
suffocate, they fall upon you without your asking and demand to be seen. I’m not thrilled with the signs of Christmas, I would say the commercial ones specifically, but when I saw a Santa Claus kneeling at the manger I realized that there was no longer any difference between secular and sacred signs of Christmas. You will find snowmen and crosses all on the same lawn. Wise men will carry gifts with a sleigh. These are the signs of Christmas that we have come to expect and that have become saccharin and empty in my mind.

Yet there is one sign that I still look to and that is the worship service anticipating the birth of Christ and celebrating that birth. In this time of year we sing certain songs, we have an advent candle, we decorate the church (although in a kind of secular way), and I preach about preparing for the coming and the birth of Christ. This is a sign of Christmas, but it is a sign that is not often named and claimed. It may partly be because it is difficult to put a worship service on one’s lawn with lights, and partly because it is something that is hard to sell.

We try. We try to make the worship service a performance with the best music possible, with live animals, with living nativity scenes, and every other bit of craziness that we can think of. There are people who go to one specific service every year because of the x, not because of the celebration and the sign of Christ.

It is my hope that I can find, celebrate, and experience the sign of Christ in worship these last few days before the season is over.

Close my eyes to the flashing lights, the presence, the songs, and all other baubles of Christmas. Open my eyes and my heart to the prayers, the singing, and the worship looking forward to your presence in our lives and in the world.
Amen
THEOLOGICAL IDEA – Most glaringly this seems to speak to the sacramental nature of worship. As a Baptist this is not an easy thing to acknowledge, but I believe it speaks to an experiential reality. In our prayers, preaching, and singing we anticipate the coming and the presence of God. When we do this as a community we embody the hope spoken of in Isaiah, and the faith that Paul lifts up.

A theology of incarnation is a big part of this expectation. During Advent we notice the absence of Christ in our lives and in the world. This close to Christmas, we begin to grasp the power and the profundity of the incarnation. God is made flesh in the world. The birth, the hope, the salvation is a reality.

Violence of Biblical Proportions

Currently I’m reading through Joshua which is not easy. It would make a great action movie with a very high death count, but hard to find myself in the story. Most likely I would be one of the kings who would hide in the cave and wait all the violence out.

I’m having a difficult time because I’m taking scripture seriously. This partly means I wont do what the pansy liberals (sorry, “progressives”) do and just read the sections that make us happy like the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, Micah, and Isaiah. I really do believe that the entire canon of scripture needs to be taken seriously or we cannot take any of it seriously – we are picking and choosing.

Nor do I want to read it in the same way as the stuck-in-the-mud conservatives who also like to pick and choose, but tend to go to Romans, Titus, Leviticus, and other hard-nosed, damning texts. I bet the progressives would look at Joshua and say, “well, we just don’t take that section of the Bible seriously,” and the conservatives would say, “well, that is a part of who God is, so get right with God or get ready to go to hell with fire!”

I like to take a narrative approach to the scriptures where I try to find myself in the passage. It is easy with the psalms and with the Gospels and with the prophets, but Joshua (along with other parts of the Bible) is tricky. God tells Joshua to wipe out whole nations – it is genocide. And while much of this has been shown to be historically inaccurate it is something that needs to be contended with.

It could be an embrace of identity – we are God’s people. It could be a sense of righteousness – we are chosen by God over these other, pagan nations. It could be justification for nationalism and war. I don’t have a good answer. All I know is that it is a bloody book and it is in the canon. I can offer suggestions but I cannot offer anything that I am comfortable with.

Hmmm…. Perhaps this is a lesson in itself. There are times when we should not feel comfortable with our faith (please don’t state the trite bit that Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and came to afflict the comfortable, it isn’t clever, it just isn’t).

There are times when we might even want things to be different than they are. If I could, I would rewrite Joshua with a much more peaceful approach, but I can’t. So I will remain off balance as I read through Joshua knowing that I may never get to a place where I can make sense of what it is that I am reading.

A Bleak Prespective

I have recently read the entirety of Charles Dickens’ masterpiece, Bleak House. My first reaction – good glory that is a long book!

I haven’t read Dickens since High School, and I was young a foolish then, missing many of the subtle jabs and undertones in his writing. Now that I am ancient and wise (that deriding laughter you hear in the background is my wife). I would like to think that I have a mature perspective on the book.

Of course I need to offer the disclaimer that I am not a literary critic, or an English professor, or any other person qualified to give a full critique of Dickens’ work. I’m just a humble Baptist theologian who is trying to make sense of a classic.

Dickens seems to get the disparaging separation of classes and does not hold back in mocking the rich and showing the honest difficulty of the poor. He does not make the poor heroes, but portrays them in an honest way. It is a reading of society that could be applied to today. This is something that I enjoyed.

The most puzzling aspect of the book is the title itself: Bleak House. I cannot count the number of times someone said to me, “Gosh, that must be Bleak, ha, ha,” showing a complete lack of knowledge of the work. Yet there is something about the title of the book and the house that cannot be ignored. Esther Summerson, the main character, becomes the caretaker of Bleak House. Esther is an ideal picture of grace, goodness, perspective, and just a ray of sunshine in everyone’s life. In the end of the book (Spoiler Alert – as if anyone is going to make it to the end) Esther and her husband are given a house that is given the name Bleak House where they raise two daughters and live happily ever after.

Maybe the name is just one of those English oddities that can be easily overlooked, but consider. With Esther’s presence, the house is not bleak. She make something of the home, she continues to give it life and hope. Consider life itself. Life is Bleak. We are born, we live, we die, and that is it. Yet we do not have to be confined to the projected idea of life (bleak) that many may embrace. We can find hope and offer a sense of joy into our lives and the lives of others.

This isn’t an optimism/pessimism distinction, but a taking what you have and living through it with grace. Esther loses much and continues to see good in life, perhaps this is a lesson for us all. This isn’t a pie-in-the-sky future hope, nor is it an optimistic belief that things will someday get better. This is an approach where you find the good in the worst and avoid any sense of self-pity. This where I look to religion for hope more than just doing your best. It is the idea that God can lead you to work with the biggest pile of crap that you have. There is a lot of theological implications in such a statement, but that will be an entry for another time.

I should talk about the Jarndyce case and the obvious metaphor for holding onto something that is not realistic, but this has been long enough. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket and don’t count on an inheritance to cover all of your debts.

Is Dickens bleak? Yes. Is Dickens hopeless? No. Kinda like this blog post – bleak but not hopeless (although it may be pointless).

This Is My Favorite Time of Year (sarcasm!)

Here are the thoughts for my Advent 1 sermon. The text is Isaiah 2:1-5 and Romans 13:11-14

MAIN IDEA – The holiday, “Christmas” season is a difficult time for me. Part of it is because I have been soured by playing to many music performances and I grew to hate Christmas music. Another part of it is because I have tended to in the past take the aspect and meaning of Advent as a penitential time, and I have had a difficult time getting into the “spirit of the time.” I had a spiritual director who once suggested that a great deal of my difficulty came from my sense that something is indeed missing in this time. There is something missing in my life and in the world. In my life I am missing the fullness of the grace of Jesus Christ and the glory I find with Christ. In the world there is a notable lack of the love and mercy that I find in Christ. So it is hard for me to be happy and upbeat in this time when I realize how much things are missing and needed.

Yet there is a longing and a desiring that is addressed in the scriptures. There is a longing for peace that is promised. There is a return of Christ that is promised. A challenge is embracing that longing and that promise and living them in an anticipatory way in the here and now. Then Advent becomes not only a time of recognizing what is missing but celebrating what is promised. Can I live with this hope and not let the excitement of the world usurp the hope of my faith?

Open my eyes to the real needs of the world and of my life. Let me see the way in which I need to be redeemed. May I see the wounds and the scars of the world even as many try to cover them up, and may I then work to offer the real hope, a promised hope, and a here and now hope of Christ.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – Paul often speaks in terms of “already/not yet.” This is a reality of the Christian life that we are already saved but not yet living into our salvation. I am led to think of David Tracy’s reference to such an awareness with his illustration of an analogical imagination. In worship, in specific moments of worship we are already in the presence of God, and yet we understand and realize the way in which we are in a very real way not yet fully living in God’s glory.

Isaiah offers a future hope and Paul calls us to future living. Two very different but very important ways to live. It is a combination of Multmann and a realized eschatology (in a way).

Whenever we are speaking of the here and now we must be aware of the presence of the Holy Spirit. In our actions of love (as Paul calls us to live) we are led and guided and lifted up by the Holy Spirit.

A Practice in Absurdity

I am currently attending meetings of bureaucratic purgatory for the American Baptist Churches, USA (ABC-USA). Through a comedy of events I have managed to be elected on the General Board of the denomination which is very basically the governing board of the denomination. It really does seem to be a practice in absurdity.

I’m going to reflect a little bit on some of the events of today (which is only half over), and maybe in another post speak about the so-far one positive meeting event that I have been a part of.

This morning was a meeting of procedure, minutia, and nit-picking over small things and things of little nature. In the same meeting we discussed a change to the by-laws of the denomination with the full realization that we will very likely not have any impact on the changes regardless if we are happy or not with the proposed changes.

So I am left thinking, “what is the point?”

I believe in the church, especially as it is manifested through the American Baptists yet the movement of the institution seems to be further away from the ideals and distinctive of the Baptist movement. Yet I do not feel as if I have any voice in the process (see a previous post for the first time the by-laws were presentedr).

What is the point?

There seems to be a growing disconnect between the denomination on the national level and local churches. The denomination seems to be focused on self-perseveration. Churches seem to be focused on self-preservation. Both seem to be looking past each other. So it is no wonder why the by-law changes do not reflect the aspect of the Baptist movement as it is practiced among the churches. On the other hand, it is no wonder why churches are not concerned with the denomination and its work.

The denomination needs to move out of the self-perseveration work and into the work of supporting and working with the churches. I doubt anything will happen.

Yet I will still sit in the meeting, half-listen and do other things at the same time (like write a blog post) and continue to practice in the absurdity.

Put Your Arms Down

Kelvin Mutize wrote:
worship is all about glorifying god.its bringing honour and praise to him. On my blog i write about the reasons and origins of worship. Read it www.theworshipofgod.blogspot.com

It doesn’t take much to make me happy. When someone posts a comment on my blog I do a little dance around my room (or coffee shop), shake my bootie, and have small, short, exaltations of joy (which usually sound like flatulence). So when Kelvin Mutize posted the above comment to my post on worship, there was much dancing, shaking, and exalting.

Then I read Mutize’s comment. I have to say, I am very grateful for his time and energy to offer his thoughts, but I disagree with his comment, and even more so with his blog.

I have heard people say that we are created to praise God, and that makes me depressed – no dancing. Is the point of worship to gather around some unseen deity, and throw our hands in the air saying again and again, “you are awesome, you are awesome, you are awesome?” Does God have such a low self-esteem that we need to prop ‘him/her’ up with our praise? This seems like a weak reason to worship.

What about the individual who just had a bad day? I mean a really bad day. The kind of day when you find out that you have cancer, and then you hear that your child has been arrested for possession, and you loose your job, and then you are reminded that you are supposed to bring the brownies to the PTA meeting tonight. Are you going to go to church before hand and say, “oh God, you are just so awesome, and greater than anything I can imagine. I’m just so darn lucky to be able to praise you?” Probably not. Instead, you will probably say something like, “what the f----, God. I’ve been good, I’ve gone to church, I’ve done what I am supposed to do, and yet I’ve found myself drowning in a pile of sh—that you call life! This sucks, amen.”
Try saying that with your arms in the air to an up-beat song.

What about the church built in an urban or rural area, surrounded by poverty? Is the purpose of worship still to praise God? Shouldn’t we be praying for the poor and asking for the gumption to go out and help the poor?

I think I’ve made my point, Mr. Mutize, your approach to worship is shallow at best. Plus, just because you find single, individual verses in the Bible that supports your argument, and you print it in nice, colorful letters, doesn’t make it true (see his blog to get what I am talking about).

What is the purpose of worship? You don’t expect me to answer that question after this long rant. I’ll just offer this – perhaps worship is a time to connect with God, wherever we are, and to connect with our brothers and sisters in Christ, wherever we are. It is a time for weeping, and for laughing…

Take us out, Pete Seeger (he put the words to music after all)

Doing Worship, Doing Service

These are the ideas for my sermon on Isaiah 58:6-9a. Chew on them and then spit them out and move on.

MAIN IDEA – I often find myself asking, “what is the purpose of worship?” I remember a conversation I had with a worship guru who kept saying that the purpose of worship was to worship. That is an answer that tells nothing. Yet so many feel that as long as they wave their arms and express an excessive amount of joy then they have done their religious duty. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be in a place that just focuses on the down and the depressed, but I don’t want to be in a contrived, false joy either. I want a worship that is fulfilling, that is meaningful, and that is challenging. Perhaps, most importantly, I want a worship where I feel as if I have had an encounter with God.

As a pastor this is not so easy for me to achieve, but it is something that I strive to coordinate and conduct with my actions in worship. Recognizing that in the end I cannot control the movement of God or the hearts of people, I still can help guide people to be closer to Christ. Perhaps that is why the emphasis on service, for it is in doing that we find Christ. It is in action that we connect with God.

At the same time I know many folks who would argue that worship isn’t the most important, but that doing is. I know folks that would argue that precious resources and time is lost on worship and worship space. They would agree that in doing one finds Christ and thus we should turn off the organ and do the work of the Lord. Yet I feel as if a spiritual depth is missing in such a response. I feel as if we need to be deliberate in connecting with God.

So I struggle with the purpose of worship. I want to be engaged in worship that is active and challenging and moving. I want to be involved in a worship service that actually feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and so on. I want it to be a time when it is clear that the Holy Spirit is present and active in the whole process.

So what is the purpose of worship? To be honest, I’m not sure there is one singular purpose. Yet I know I want to pull from worship a sense, a conviction of action and service.

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – George Lindbeck suggests that doctrine should not tell us so much what to believe, but how to believe. In worship we actively engage with the doctrine, the beliefs of our faith. That is if we are indeed active in our faith.

Brueggemann reminds us that the prophet cuts into the stupor, the kingly religion of our lives and calls us back to the cry of the Lord. The Latin phrase, Lex Orandi, Lex Crendi (in the work of the people is the rule or belief of the people) holds a lot of power and truth with worship.

Finally, there is a sacramental awareness that I feel is important to lift up. The difference between service the poor and service the poor in worship is that awareness of the presence of Christ in all that we are doing.

Hell is Always Changing

I’m continuing to slog thought Foucault and finding him more and more fascinating. Yesterday I read his selection from Discipline and Punish, “The Body Condemned.” In this work Foucault is looking at the forms and types of penal and judicial punishment in Western civilization throughout the centuries. In doing so he makes the point that, “different systems of punishment … (occur) with the systems of production within which they operate” (Reader, 172). He also states that, “the systems of punishment are to be situated in a certain ‘political economy’ of the body…” As I understand it, Foucault is stating that the punishment of the day fit the political economy of the day, for example in a mercantile economy a prison factory and forced labor was the punishment.

This is all very interesting, but what has it to do with the church or anything else? Consider this from a theological perspective – does the punishment that Christianity suggests align or is influenced by the political economy or the socio-historical context of the day?

For some time hell was the soup de jour. If you weren’t a Christian and especially the right kind of Christian you would end up in the terrors and pain and torture of hell. The horror, the horror. As society progressed, or at least plodded along hell continued to be in the mix but other ideas emerged. The existentialists suggested that the end may be nothing and that would be the hell. The warm and friendly liberals suggested that everyone would go to heaven and there would be no hell. Others would say that there is a hell but no one is going there. The focus on punishment shifted.

If you have time to kill and want to see a great contrast, read Dante’s Divine Comedy and then read C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce. Both deal with the same topic. Lewis is deeply influenced by Dante, yet the terror is very different. Gone is the man eating the brains of another man. Gone are the skins of people hanging on trees. Gone are the traitors being eternally chewed in the very bottom of hell. Instead people are in a hell which is very much like life, a Purgatory which is like a bus stop, and heaven, which is finding one’s true life.

Some may say that Lewis is just modernizing Dante’s work, but considering Foucault’s theory, perhaps Lewis is influenced by the socio-historical, political, and economic context of the day.

In the end the lesson is still, be good or go to hell. Hell may not be that bad or it may be awful or it may just be a room with two other people and there is no exit. Sure, we may make it up, but it still sucks.

What Now?

Now that I have pretty much finished the doctoral stuff, I am left wondering what to do. I don’t want to become one of those people who never does any research again, but on the other hand I don’t want to have my life ruled by something in such a way. I want to live, damnit, can’t you let me live!

So I am trying to figure out what to do with my time. I am still reading Foucault with a friend of mine, but I feel I could do more, or at least be a little more focused. I do have a lot of books to read, which is good, but that isn’t focused either.

My fear is that I will end up being pulled in many directions, that I will find my time full but without any focus or direction. I want to continue to work, just give me some direction.

Elections aren't Real

Finally, elections are over and I can return to thinking and worrying about myself and not getting angry about ads, lies, and corruption. Back to the church.

I have been thinking about the elections, rhetoric, and how the whole process is in some very real ways a construct but not a reality (chew on that for a moment). I have recently read two essays by Michel Foucault from his work Madness and Civilization in The Foucault Reader – "The Great Confinement" and "Birth of the Asylum." In these essays, as best as I can understand them, Foucault describes the ways in which ideas of “madness” were construed based on the desires and priorities of society and in which the ideas of healing was construed based on the set norms and standards of society.

Madness was being idle, not working. Healing was agreeing with the terms and standards set by those in control. Granted, this is a very, very gross simplification of Foucault’s ideas and writings but it will serve my purpose. Think about the rhetoric of politicians in this whole process. “If you vote this way then you believe X” “If you vote for me then you are casting a vote for X” With these statements the terms of a vote are being created and we are pulled into making a decision not for a candidate based on his or her values and abilities, but for ideals.

This goes even farther when we are told what values we are supposed to have. The often used phrase, “Take our Country Back,” is loaded with implications. Our country has gone astray and we need to either vote to take it back, or vote to further lead it away.

Powerful rhetoric is nothing new in the process; in fact the whole thing is nothing new. Yet I think Foucault’s ideas offer a point of view of the role of power in the discourse. In this whole process the terms are set, the ideals are set, and the stakes are set. We (the people) do not have a choice to change for if we do we are “mad.” When we cast a vote we are relinquishing power. When we, out of disgust, abstain from voting we are relinquishing power. We are told that we exercise our power when we vote, yet I think that the whole thing is about the populous losing power and the leading class maintaining it.

Sad news – there is most likely no way out. Because I care so much about the consciousness and mental health of my readers I want to leave you on a happy note. Follow this link to one of the many inane videos of a cat doing something on YouTube.

Outcasts!

Thoughts for Matthew 25:34-36 focusing on the sick and those in prison.

MAIN IDEA – Labels are very useful to cast people out, to proclaim who the “other” is. Some are placed with malice, but others are subconsciously projected with blame, shame, and judgment. I am constantly visiting people who are sick and I go because I feel they need to be connected with the family of Christ and the presence of Christ. Yet I describe them as sick. I label them, and with those labels separate myself from them. I wonder to what degree I place myself above those who are sick. I wonder to what degree I see myself as better in one way or another because I am not in that same situation. I go, I pray, and then I leave. Yet to I ever really imagine what it might be like to be in that situation? This is not just for the sick, but for the grieving, the hurting, and the lost. People living with unemployment, divorce, death, and many other issues of life.

I think I am being to hard on myself, I do try to imagine what it might be like, but I still protect myself. The separation is more evident when I think of those in prison. These are people who made bad choices. These are people who should be in prison, but am I so different? I am fortunate because I have been born a white male, because I have good parents, and have grown up in a good environment. How responsible am I for my blessings? How responsible are others for their curses?

It is a small step to end up living a life of despair. It is a small moment that places a person in a place of sickness unto death. I may place myself apart and above, but it is not so great of a divide from those in the prison of the hospital bed or of the jail. Thus I visit not only to bring Christ but to experience Christ with a brother or sister who is in a situation that I very well could be in.

Lord, help me to humble my views of others. Help me to be honest with my blessings and my failings. When I visit others, may I see myself and offer thanks. When I visit others may I see you and live in your love.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – Lucan writes about relationality that is important – a relationality that is reflected in the trinity. We also need to be honest about the human condition, that we all are fallen in one way or another, that we all could be sick or in prison no matter how good we think we are. We don’t grant forgiveness, but we do offer compassion.

Finally, interestingly, Michel Foucault seems to offer some insight on being in prison or in the hospital. While he is speaking about the Asylum, there is a sense that applies to sick or in prison. We, society, dictates the terms and conditions upon which others may live, and if they do not meet those terms, we label them as different and as others.

The End is Near?

This Sunday I am preaching from Daniel 7:1-3, 15-18. It is a fun and scary text. Here are some thoughts that I have as I work on the sermon

MAIN IDEA – I have to be honest, I don’t think about the end, i.e. the final coming of Christ. I would rather think about my children growing old, about my own dreams and successes. It is probably out of a sense of fear that I don’t consider the end. If I embrace the idea that Jesus is coming any time, then shouldn’t I live life much differently? I suppose that depends how I view the end. If it is something that we should be working towards, then I need to get more involved in the world and do what I can to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. If it is something that we just need to wait for, that I should be working to strengthen my faith and the faith of my family. It is something that I think about, regardless of my approach or theological understanding, it is something that affects the way I live out my faith.
Yet I need to have the idea of the return of Christ; it is important and essential to my faith. I need to know that some day things will get better. Actually I need to know that some day things will be the way that God intends, that things will reach perfection. This is because there are days when I struggle and struggle and look for something to claim as a source of hope. I need to believe that some day there will be a return of Christ.
I think it is something that I need to consider more often. It is something that I should take more seriously because it does challenge the way I live my faith. It may not always be easy, but it is the support that I need and the grace that I can receive.

I want to believe that some day things will change. I do believe that some day things will change. I know this can convict me of my laziness in my faith, but it also can inspire me in living out my faith. Let that truth of Christ’s return stir on my heart so that I may follow those who lived out this faith and find that glory land. Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – Eschatology, eschatology, eschatology. There are two approaches that I am considering in this sermon: dispensational premillennialism – the idea that the millennial kingdom will be ushered in by divine manifestation at the second coming which will happen when the conditions of life have reached their greatest tribulation; postmillennialism – the idea that the last things are being extended in the world through preaching, works, and the like, and that Christ will return at the end of a long period of righteousness and peace.

I lean towards a realized eschatology, which in some ways is similar to postmillennialism except for the belief that our good works can usher the Kingdom of God. Our good works can usher in an experience of the Kingdom in the here and now, but will not hasten or slow down the second coming of Christ. We do not know the time or the place, so we do what we can now for the now. The saints that have gone before us, I believe, have embraced this approach to living out their faith.

FINISHED!

The title says it all. So now it is Dr. to you!

Thirsty?

Here are some thoughts for my next sermon from my series on service. The scripture, such as it is, is Matthew 25:34-35.

MAIN IDEA – There is a thirst that we are told we are supposed to have. This is a thirst to look a certain way, to act a certain way, and to live according to a set of values. This is a thirst that I have when I think about my work with the church. When there is a low attendance, when the numbers don’t grow, I feel as if I am failing in some way and I thirst for more. I thirst for more glory and recognition. This is a thirst that is not fulfilled by controlling the environment, but by letting go. The real, the true thirst is about my desire to be recognized, affirmed, and loved. No matter how “successful” I may be, no matter how “great” I may be, my thirst will never be satiated. The truth is that it is only from God that I will find thirst quenched. Christ is the life-giving water, and in Christ I find that I am loved, redeemed and accepted for who I am. With Christ I am reminded that when I show love to one person then I am successful in Christ’s eyes. What is it that I thirst for? It is for salvation in the here and now. Where do I find that? I find that salvation with Christ.

Holy God, help me to trust your salvation, not just the salvation you have promised, but the salvation that you are promising. Help me to trust that when I work for your glory then I am doing what you have called me to do. Help me to embrace the grace and the glory you have offered me, and then to offer that to others so that our thirst will be fulfilled.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – part of this is the reality of helping the thirsty by working for clean water in the world. Part of this is showing that the grace of God is a reality in the here and now. It is showing people that there is sanctification, salvation, and redemption. The redemption is what we want to embrace in this instance – a redemption of who we are and a glorification of who we are in Christ.
Walter Wink and Rene Girard speak of this redemption on a social level. With Girard we are freed from the desire to look again and again for a scapegoat to our violent actions. With Wink we are to look for redemption to the powers and principalities of which we are all a part.
There is also the personal aspect – salvation as being freed from the human condition. I do not view the human condition as just being sinful or fallen, but along with this as desiring something that cannot be met through humanity but only with God. This includes the desire to be loved and accepted.

Say what you Mean

Inconsistent.

Language is important in that it reflects not only our beliefs but through shared convictions and speech reflects the beliefs and values of our community. Yet this only happens if language is consistent. Recently Paladino made a number of anti-gay remarks and then said that he was not homophobic or even anti-gay. He even issued an apology saying that his words were not well chosen and he has many gay friends.

This is a great example of inconstancy. When Paladino makes strong anti-gay statements and then says that he is not anti-gay all we can surmise that at some point he is being disingenuous. He is no longer speaking of truth as he understands it or embraces it.

Wittgenstein, Lindbeck, McClendon, Austin, and many others look at language as a key way to understand faith, doctrine, beliefs, and truth(s) in a community. Yet they all rely on consistence and depth in the statements. When people speak of things they do not fully embrace truth is lost. When someone says one thing and then says another thing truth is lost. We need to be consistent.

Fairness

As a father I often hear the mantra “that’s not fair!” Of course the response is, “life isn’t fair.” It is a standard parenting liturgy similar to the moment when the priest says, “the peace of Christ be with you.” If I ever start a church dedicated to parenting, this would be the liturgy (imagine this said in a monotone drone):

L – You must share
P – That’s not fair
L – Life isn’t fair
P – I hate you
L – then I’m doing my job – let us sulk in prayer

I was thinking about this the other day, and from my point of view, I’m happy that life isn’t fair. If life was fair than all of the resources I have, all of the opportunities that I am afforded would have to be shared with others. I would have to share sections of my yard with others, as well as rooms in my house (and I don’t have that many to share). It isn’t fair that some people are born in a part of the world that is ravaged with violence and others are born in places like Sweden. It isn’t fair that some people are more talented than others. See Vonnegut’s story Harrison Bergeron for a great look at a “fair” life. Life isn’t fair.

There are times when we should step in and protest the unfairness. For example the disparity of wages in many companies between the highest paid and the lowest paid is unfair and unjust. The fact that I have a number of opportunities because I am white and male and straight is unjust. Tax breaks for the wealthiest of America while the middle class struggles to make ends meet is not fair (that’s right, I got political on your a-s). Life isn’t fair and often times this is wrong.

Now we would like to think that God loves everyone the same, and that is true. Yet there is this great concept – preferential option for the poor. You’ll find this in Catholic literature including a number of writings from the liberation theology camp. The idea is that God loves everyone, but just like a parent will go to the child who is sick first, God will go to the people who are hurting first. Perhaps this is why we often say that God is found with the least of society.

Now you may say, “that’s not fair, I have problems and issues to.” You’re right, that isn’t fair, but it is just. If you still don’t like it, you can take it up with God. That has always worked well in the past.

Matthew 25:35 - Be Nice!

MAIN IDEA – It is one thing to say that everyone is welcomed, but it is another to actually practice such a concept. We welcome the stranger on our terms. We embrace the stranger in the way that we are comfortable with. Sometimes that means bringing the stranger into our home and other times that means welcoming the stranger in a fenced in area in the backyard. This is not a political statement, but a human statement. There are people who we are more comfortable with and others who scare us. Personally, there are people that I get along with more than others. There are times when someone would visit the church and I roll my eyes and duck under the desk. There are other times when I run out to say hello with gusto. Our hospitality is selective.

Yet we are called to welcome the stranger. The stranger is not defined. The welcome is not defined. We are to welcome the stranger, no matter how uncomfortable that may make us feel.

Now the doors to the church are always open to everyone, but I don’t believe that is welcoming. Right now the stranger has to make the effort to enter into the doors, and someone who is very different from the congregation will very likely not walk through those doors. The stranger in the church is most likely someone who is going to be comfortable in the church. What if we were to go out and find the people who are true strangers and then reach out to them, comfort them, welcome them in a non-threatening, loving way? What if we went to the outcasts rather than waited for the outcasts to come to us? What if we went to those who are labeled as different and did what we could do make them feel comfortable? Could the church, could I do this proactive welcoming of the stranger?

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – As Christians we are strangers in this world. It is very easy to forget this, especially in America. Hauerwas again and again tries to call the church to remember that we are not a part of the secular politics, but a part of God’s politics, God’s realm. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges in welcoming the stranger is realizing that we are strangers ourselves. We reach out as people who are not a part of the establishment. We reach out as strangers.

There is also the idea of relationality. Levanis and Buber (ironic that they are both Jewish philosophers) both push the idea of seeing the other in a relational way. It is an I-thou rather than a I-it. This is stretching beyond other Christians to all of God’s children. Welcoming the stranger without judging the stranger is difficult but it is what I believe we are called to do.

Every Toy Can be a Weapon

I just listened to the short story The Toys of Peace by Saki on Selected Shorts. It is a clever story about a well-meaning, but clueless couple trying to properly educate a pair of boys (9 and 11) towards peace rather than violence. Their uncle buys them toys resembling municipalities, industry, and public works as well as individuals resembling politicians and civil servants. Their hope is that the boys will change their play from a focus of warfare to one of peace. SPOILER ALEART As the story ends the boys have made the toys into a bloody confrontation.

This is an excellent satire on human nature as well as those who think they know better. Is it our natural proclivity to lean towards violence? Do we need to learn how to be civil towards each other, and do we do this out of a feeling of necessity (as some philosophers suggest)? Give a child a stick and it quickly becomes a sword.

This partly addresses the wonderful question of nature vs. nurture of the naturalists, or original sin vs. original capacity to sin for the religious. I know there are those out their who immediately argue for original sin, agreeing with the idea of nature. If this is the case, than the sanctifying grace of Christ is necessary to keep us all from becoming blood-thirsty killers. Yet there are many non-Christians who are not blood-thirsty killers perhaps suggesting that there is a nurturing affect on people that teach us a code of conduct and self-control.

We can do better on our own or with Christ. A question, then, is if Christians get a leg up because of sanctifying grace, or if it is just a different way to try to avoid one’s natural inclinations towards violence. That is if you buy such an idea.

Keep your Hands to Yourself! (Lingusitically Speaking)

I’m in the middle of reading an article in the American Academdy of Religion Journal (Volume 78, No. 2) about Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy and Tradition. In this article a number of scholars give their impressions on Stout’s work. I just read the response of Richard Rorty, and had some thoughts.

Rotry wants to argue that there is no room for a theist in a pragmatist approach to reality. Using Robert Brandom’s philosophy, he claims that all authority is derived from social norms. Concerning the idea of the existence of God, Rotry states, “For commitment to the existence of a non-human person who knows truths that human beings do not seems to me to presuppose what Dewey called a spectatorial account of knowledge…The idea that there could be such knowledge is, it seems to me, a metaphysical one.”

He goes on to argue that pragmatists do not argue for perfect knowledge, for such knowledge cannot exist. Because theists follow the “rules” of a being that is above and beyond humanity, and not the “rules” of the public, they cannot be reliable citizens, at least as reliable as atheists. Here is my disclaimer – it is very like that I am missing some of the nuanced points of Rotry, so forgive me if I do. Now I can say whatever I want.

It seems to me that Rotry is missing the point that Brandom is making re: social norms. Yes, there are social norms dictated by a government, or even a political philosophy like democracy. Yet from where do we get the ideas that shape our practice of democracy? The emerge partly through practice, and partly (I would argue) from our ability to conceive of the possibility of the existence of a pure or perfect democracy. Granted, such a conception may be flawed, but it is in practicing that we hone the ideal and the real. I am sure that the pragmatists are jumping and screaming that I have just mixed up realism and idealism. Calm down tigger.

This dialectic practice of conceiving and practicing exists within the community. It is an ideal as it is talked about and shared by the community, but not a metaphysical ideal. Consider this then with theism. Religious folks talk about a deity, practice worshipping that deity, and then hone their idea of the deity. Years and decades and generations go one with sacred texts passing down truths surrounding this idea of the deity and the practices that have emerged. Such speech and dialectic exist within the confines of the community.

Now I am sure all of the religious nuts are jumping up and down, yelling that I cannot make God just a concept of a group of people. Here is the rub. Speech exists within a community. If that community says God exists, then it is true for that community. If another community says that God does not exist then it is true for that community. Where we run into trouble is when we try to judge the validity of the truth of other communities. Can we make such a judgment if we do not speak the language of the community? I mean really and truly speak and understand the language of the community? I cannot judge or evaluate the speech-act that God does not exist because I have not embraced the speech of a community of atheists. Rotry can claim that Christians are not pragmatists, but he does not fully speak the language of the Christian community.

What I am suggesting is that we can only speak about what we know. This is problematic for many, and has many holes, but is an initial response to Rotry’s critique.

It is just like mother always said, “if you can’t say something nice that would be understood by the community via the rules of the community, than do say anything at all.”

Ps – this means we (Christians) can’t judge whether or not Islam is a violent religion. We can quantify acts as violent, but we can’t judge the speech/values of a religion if we are not a part of that religion. Chew on that you crazy reactionists!

Stop Yelling at Me!

I don’t like it when people yell at me.

This was my revelatory awareness that I arrived at last night when discussing Foucault’s essay on the Enlightenment last night with a friend of mine. We were talking about attitude et al (see earlier blog post), conflicting truths, and discourse. My friend wondered about a cartoonist who suggested a day when everyone would draw a picture of Mohammad to make a point that everything is in the realm of satire and some fanatics should not be able to dictate what one could or could not draw or critique. In response the fanatical folks targeted her for death and the like because she suggested it might be ok to draw a satirical picture of their holy prophet.

This is an example of opposing truths. On the one hand one is saying that everything is up for satire. On the other hand one is saying that there are some things which are outside of the bounds of satire.

Now for discourse. The situation is intractable because the discourse was directed at usurping each other’s truth. If the cartoonist called an Imam, even a radical, fanatical one and asked to talk about the possibilities of drawing Mohammad, why it would be wrong and so on things might be different. If the fanatical folks called the cartoonist and asked to talk about her point and wanted to discuss potential possibilities and so on things might be different. The discourse of both conversations is one of exploration and understanding rather than one of conquest. Yet the reality is a discourse of conquest directly challenging the truth that the other holds.

The reason why I do not like it when people yell at me, when “discussing” certain topics is because it is usually a discourse of conquest. Take the hot-button topics (homosexuality, abortion, etc.), the level of discourse is one of conquest not one of exploration and understanding. The yelling is understandable because one’s truth is on the line either to prove superiority or to resist the attack.

This is not the discourse I want to engage in because I do not think it is in any way productive. I would much rather learn, understand, and explore and from there see where we should go.

So, if you should ever see me in a bar, don’t be surprised if you hear me say, “Let’s roll down our sleeves, put on our jackets, go inside and talk this out like human beings.”

Matthew 25 - Bread Line

The second sermon in my series on service focuses on serving the hungery. Here are some thoughts:

MAIN IDEA – Hunger is a major issue in the world. Millions of people die of hunger, live with hunger, and go without. It affects education, relationships, and many other aspects of life.
Spiritual hunger is a major issue in the world. Millions of people claim to have a faith of one kind or another, but seem to be walking around like zombies without any sense of passion or joy for life. They are living, but they seem to have a hunger for something more, for something fulfilling that can give some hope.
I live in a context and preach to a society that knows spiritual hunger in a very real way, but does not truly know physical hunger. I have never experienced physical hunger; I have never wondered where my next meal will come from. Yet I recognize that many hunger and I recognize that those who feel the pangs of hunger the greatest are the ones whom Christ loves as deeply and as passionately as Christ loves me. I am called to reach out to those who are hungry.
The same goes with the spiritually hungry. It may be a lost passion, it may be a true sense of despair and hurt, but there is a rotting on the inside that is a part of their life, and Christ loves them as well. I am called to reach out to those who are hungry.
Yet it is important that I remember the source of my nourishment before doing anything else. I need to remember how Christ has redeemed me and given hope to my life. Then I will be able to offer food.
A challenge that I face is maintaining my passion and my own sense of connection and spirituality as I reach out to and help others physically and spirituality. I need to remember to stay close to Christ as I reach out to others.
Open my eyes to the hungry, Lord. Open my eyes to their hurting, their pain, and their sorrow. Help me to imagine what it might be like to live with insecurity and unknowing and awaken me to ways in which I can help. Stir my heart to those in need of your love and grace, and continue to remind me of the ways that I have been redeemed.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – Christ offers himself as the broken bread and in doing so unites the church. There is something powerful and profound about this “sacramental” act. In offering himself Christ is offering his grace to the church and promising to be with the church. Thus in ecclesiology itself do we find the life-giving bread of Christ through worship, fellowship, and sacrament.
Throughout this series of sermons we need to remember some of the major critiques and contributions of liberation theology. We must be careful to presume to offer a theology to those who are starving from our place of comfort. We must go to where the hungry are, live with the hungry, imagine what it is like to be hungry, and then from there offer the bread of life as well as physical bread.

Matthew 25:31-46 - A Little Service Please!

This is the first of a series of sermons on serving God, so this is the "set-up" sermon.

MAIN IDEA – This scripture is one of the most difficult ones for me to read and take seriously. It pushes a kind of “works” righteousness that many would like to avoid, and yet the works that it pushes are those which I do not want to avoid. When I read this passage I wonder if I am true to my Christianity. It is easy for me to offer prayers, to praise God, and to avoid hurting others, but this passage is suggesting that this is not enough.

Yet how much is enough? The needs of the hurting and the suffering are so great, that I can’t imagine that I could ever stop caring for and helping others, and I run the risk of burning out. I want to help, I want to serve God, but I get tired, I find that I yearn rest, and look for moments of peace to myself.

Perhaps what worries me most about this passage is that it gives me a sense of guilt and anxiety. I read this passage and I realize that there is work to do. I read this passage and I wonder how I can do enough. I read this passage and I realize in a very real way that my salvation hinges on the salvation of others. How can I read this passage and continue to sleep well in my faith?

God give me the restlessness to continue to look for you amongst the least of your children. Never let me cease from serving you through serving others. Yet give me the grace to rest, to relax, and to find moments of peace in all that I do. Let me serve you completely in work, rest, prayer, and play. Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – This passage is about judgment. There is no other way to look at it. The passage suggests that there will be a moment, a time of judgment and our actions will be in question. When grace is so strongly emphasized, how can we understand this passage of works? Sanctification should come into play in this tension. We are growing in our faith, and that should effect our actions. If this is the case, then we need to continue to be deliberate in choosing the right thing to do, always relaying on grace.

The principle of subsidiarity is one that teaches that the plight of the least affects the plight of all. This is a much more communal way of looking at salvation – it moves from the individual to the community. If one suffers than all suffers. If one is hungry than all are hungry. This also pushes the idea of locality rather than a global or even a national effort. All decisions should take into consideration the least.

Let's Go Out to the Movies

Well here it is, post number 3 all in one day. Can you keep up with this? I probably won’t post again for a while, so all of you will have time to read my brilliant thoughts.

Good news – I am scheduling my dissertation defense!

Better news, I have recently finished watching all 100 of the AFI’s 100 best films of the past century.

It has been an interesting journey to watch these movies, and I plan on watching them again. Many of these movies have become cultural icons in many different ways (come back, Shane!), but they are icons that can be missed or lost if one doesn’t take the time to reach back and watch the old classics. It also is interesting to watch the change in acting style through the years, as well as directing and special effects.

In the end I can say that it was a good thing to watch all of these movies. When they have good plots, acting, or direction, it is like eating a fine meal. The negative effect is that it is harder for me to watch poor movies. Just the other day I was trying to watch “Bitch Slap” but couldn’t stomach it. Thanks a lot AFI!

Just a Good Read

Two posts in the same day! Can you dig it? (does anyone say “dig” anymore in that context?)

A couple of weeks ago I read Zora Neale Hurston’s first novel, Jonah’s Gourd Vine. I have not read any of Hurston’s works before this, so I was not sure what to expect. I have to say, it was a very, very good work. Along with a good plot, gripping characters, and vivid descriptions, Hurston seemed to capture a sacramentality similar to that which Flannery O’Connor captures in many of her short stories. The way Hurston describes the train (which I would argue is a prominent character in the novel), the church gatherings, and the sermons transcend just a descriptive telling.

What is interesting about Hurston’s sacramentiality is the way she bridges the past and the future with African-American culture. More than once Hurston speaks of past, African influences on current Christian and non-Christian practices. When it is overt it is seen in a negative way (as the charmer of John Parson). When it is subvert it is seen in a positive way, as in the meetings in the woods that John Parson went to growing up. We need to remember that Hurston was a well trained anthropologist and so very aware of the influence past cultures were having on current cultures.

It is an excellent, beautiful book that I highly recommend.

Let's Go Crazy!

As promised, here is the first of a couple of “real” blog posts. No more lazy fillers, at least for now.

I don’t like to comment on current events. Partly because I like to think that I am above all that. After all, a theological snob need not focus on the riff raff of the hoi polloi. Mostly because I have no spine and I don’t want to get a lot of angry comments from people who may disagree with me. Now you have learned my secret, the more complex and technical the harder it is to disagree. Ha!

Anyway, you may have heard that Christians are not the only religious fanatics on the planet. Apparently there are others who are just as crazy as the Christians. Currently it seem to be popular for the crazy, zealous Christians to focus their insanity on fearing Islam, another massive and crazy in their own way kind of religion. So we (the Christians) are afraid of where they (the Muslims) are going to live, where they are going to build their Mosques, and even what they read. This fear seems to be the popular thing of the day.

If I had to be serious for a moment (and I hate being serious) I would feel that I should say that Islam, as far as I understand it, is no more dangerous, crazy, or radical than Christianity. We all have our nuts. I suppose we could flip such a statement around as say that Islam is just as peaceful, loving, and good as Christianity. We all have our saints. I’m not going to get into the theological complexities of religious comparisons – I have addressed that in other places. I do want to give a shout-out to a leader in my beloved denomination the American Baptist Churches of the U.S.A. (we really need a shorter, sexier title). Roy Medley, our General Secretary (think of a Pope without any authority, any power, but responsibility), made some great statements at a recent National Council of Churches gathering to talk about crazy people fearing Muslims. I can say that based on his comments, I am proud to be Baptist.

This whole brew-ha-ha has furthered my vision to have a convention of moderate thinking religion folks across the religious spectrums. Think of it, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and many more, all gathered together holding signs saying, “we’re not all crazy!” Sounds like fun.

New Links!

Not that I want you to leave this blog and go elsewhere, but I did put two new links on the blog.

Putting out the Fleece is written by a retired Presbyterian minister (and regular comment contributor to this blog). Her blog proves that one can retire from serving a church, but one cannot ever stop being a pastor. I suppose because she is Presbyterian this is what God planned.

Steve the Owl is a true West Virginia Democrat from a coal-mining town who has plenty of spit and fire. Since he was my student intern at one time I would like to think that I am partly responsible for where he is today (that may be good or bad).

Enjoy, and I promise a real post is coming soon - I have a lot to blog about.

We Need more Cowbell (i.e. vision)

I know, I need to do a "real" post, but you will have to settle with this. These are thoughts for this week's sermon based on Ephesians 4:1-7. It is based heavely on Bullard's Life-cycle of a church.

MAIN IDEA – It is easy to fall into a routine and forget why I am doing what I am doing. It is easy to find myself just going through the daily motions and not thinking about the reasons. With prayer it is easy. With preaching it is easy. With my presence it is easy, and things start to die. This is very true and very real for the church. It is easy for churches to focus so much and keeping things going that people in churches tend to forget why they formed in the first place. They tend to forget what it is that gathers them together and the church starts to die.

This stupor and atrophy occurs with individuals, with institutions, and with movements and often we don’t notice it until it is to late. At those points people tend to panic, people tend to worry and go for safe, easy maintenance of faith and actions. Homogeneity tends to be favored over diversity. Conservative tends to be favored over creativity. It is a scary situation for many, and diversity only adds to the fear. In my faith, I have calmed down my passion to protect my profession. I have quieted things and it may be to the point where returning to that passion I had would cause so much shock as to scare me and all those around me.

I have been called into the one hope of my calling. I have been embraced by the Spirit, and I should not have any fear to live my passion and my faith. The church has been called and should not fear. We have been called and should not fear.

Remind us of our calling, Lord. Remind us of the ways in which you have blessed us, the passion we had in you, the relationships we find through you, and the changes we live in you. Remind us and then give us the strength to reclaim that one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – Unity in the church is always a difficult thing to embrace. The passage suggesting one Lord, faith, and baptism offers something to embrace. In fact, it may be just enough to embrace. The particulars of interpretation, ecclesiology, etc., need to have a breadth of diversity within and among churches. There is always the danger of creeds and there is always the danger of relativity.

Thoughts on Philemon 1-21 - The Pressure!

Below are thoughts for my upcoming sermon considering why we do what we do - if it is out of the desires of our heart, or if it is giving into pressures and expectations. I have not yet considered how to include Bowie's song "Under Pressure."

MAIN IDEA – The question of how to be a Christian always plagues me. I wonder if I am being good enough, if I am quoting enough scripture, or if I am living a holy life. Maybe I should listen to more Christian music, maybe I should refer to God more often. Maybe I should be involved in more direct actions of ministry, I should be helping more people. Maybe I should be telling more people about Jesus. All of these things are on my mind when I consider my Christian life. I wonder if I am true and honest to my relationship with God. Appearances are important, and they affect how I view my own life.

Paul is clear that Philemon has an obligation, but he seems to leave things to Philemon’s desire. It should be Philemon’s desire that sends Onesimus back to Paul, not a sense of duty or appearance or obligation. This should also be the focus of my life – if I am living into the desires of my heart when it is true to God. If I am honest and true then I should not worry about what others think, how I am judged, and what I am doing.

My heart is restless until it finds rest in thee. Pull my heart and let it taste the rest that you offer. Let my desire for you grow in my heart so that my life can follow the desires of my heart. Through Christ I have a relationship with you, may that relationship grow and grow seeping into every aspect of my life.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – The basic idea is faith vs. works, which goes beyond Luther but seems to be articulated well by Luther. Ultimately our works do not make us Christians, our faith does. We cannot act like Christians, our actions must come out of our new relationship with God – our faith.

The transformed relationships through Christ is profound in this as well. We recall Paul’s statement that there is neither slave nor free in Christ. Through baptism we are all brought into a new ordering in the church; an ordering that changes the way we see each other.

A Rant or Glen Beck Makes this Snob Angry

One of the reasons that I try to be a theological snob is so I can avoid discussing popular culture, current events, and politics. Clearly theology is above all of that so I need not concern myself with such paltry thoughts. Yet this morning as I read about Glen Beck’s rally which is supposed to happen today, and thought, “hmm, I suppose that is theological and merits some response.”

First lets start with a type of government called “theocracy.” Say it with me: the-oc-racy. Now I am not with my tomes and tomes of books, so I went to Princeton for a definition:

a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided); a belief in government by divine guidance

This is an important distinction to make from democracy:

The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representative; a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
Ok, keep those two definitions in your head.

One of the critiques of Islam that I had heard is that they (the evil, plotting, Muslims) want to establish a theocracy instead of a democracy. Yet, the Taliban pushes such an approach and so there is some merit to such a critique. It probably is justified to look at one group of a religion and make the blanket statement that all Muslims are like the Taliban.

Then I found these quotes in an article this morning:

“This is the beginning of the great awakening of America…We must give voice to what God says we must do…My message to you tonight is stand where He wants you to stand and trust in the Lord. If He tells you to do it, do it. If you can’t figure it out, He will. Just do it.”

“My role is, as I see it, to wake America up to the back-sliding of principles and values and, most importantly, of God… We are a country of God. As I look at the problems in our country, quite honestly I think the hot breath of destruction is breathing on our necks.”

These are not quotes of someone supporting a democracy, but of someone supporting a theocracy. Clearly Beck is the spokesperson for God, and should be our supreme ruler. There is no need to vote for things, because we just need to listen to God (who has a direct line to Beck and company) and do what God says to do even if we don’t understand.

How the f—k is this any different from the oppressive rhetoric of dictatorial Muslims who have already gone so far as to oppress people in the name of religion? Just because Beck is under the flag of Christianity does not make it ok; his rhetoric is just as dangerous (say nothing of Sarah Palin’s gun-lovin’ sound bites). Say nothing of the people that Beck and company fears, hates, and would love to see this country without. It is very scary speech.

In a theocracy people are not free to follow God. This was one of the Baptist arguments for freedom of religion. People need to be free to say “yes” or “no” to God, a theocracy takes away that freedom.

I would agree with Beck that America is in a dangerous place but that is as far as the agreement would go. It is in a dangerous place because of the close-minded, short-sighted, self-serving polemical rhetoric that is spouted and embraced.

Today I will pray to God, but I’m not going to ask anyone else to pray, and I sure as hell won’t tell anyone what to ask from God. Bleh!

We Need More Pricks!

This past Sunday I had the privilege of attending an ordination council. For the non-Baptists out there, that is the final step someone has to do before becoming ordained. In the council, the individual reads a paper describing his or her religious life, call, and theological beliefs. The council, made up of pastors and lay people from nearby churches, will then ask questions of challenge and clarification. The purpose is to discern if the candidate has (1) an internal call – or a sense that God is calling him or her to a specific ministry in one way or another (normally pastoral ministry). (2) the external call – or a sense that the candidate has the abilities necessary, and a faith/theology within the norms (broadly construed) of the community.

In the past these councils were places where the candidate was grilled about things like the Atonement, the divine nature of Jesus, biblical interpretation, and many other things. Yet recently they seem to have become pro forma – a step that does not seem necessary. A committee has already worked with the candidate and made sure that his or her paper is acceptable, and the council is just supposed to give the stamp of approval. Thus most of the council questions have this flavor:

Q. – In your paper you say that you love God. How much do you love God?
A. – I love God a lot!
- Thank you.

Q. – I see that you like to quote a lot of scripture. Is that because the Bible is important to you?
A. – Yes
- Thank you.

Q. – Can you tell me more about your awesome experience of conversion?
Q. – Describe to me how great God is.
Q. – You’re such a great guy/gal. Why do you think that is?

You get my point.

So recently we had an ordination council. While most of the questions were not this easy, they were not specifically challenging, and perhaps more importantly, there were not a lot of them. There were a number of questions about the faith journey, which is important, as well as the sense of call, but not a lot concerning theology. This is disturbing to me. It gives me the impression that churches are not concerned if an individual shows that he or she has taken the time to really think about things like salvation, despair, and the church. So I ended up asking the majority of the questions in the theology section.

Because of this I left looking like a prick – someone who wanted to show off their learning. I don’t think I asked anything that anyone who has a seminary degree would have been able to ask. Actually, a critical reader would have been able to find the discrepancies in the paper. Yet I got to be the prick. Oh well, soon they will have to call me Dr. Prick, PhD.

It is a serious concern when the ordination council becomes so easy and basic. We need to take the time to really be sure that the candidate has an internal call, and why that is so strong. As I often ask, “if there is anything else you can do, then do it. If not, if you have to be ordained because there is no other path, then go for it.”

We also need to push people, especially pastors, on their theology. I am not saying everyone has to believe what I believe (even though I am right, if I may humbly say so), but pastors need to be able to articulate their faith, be aware of inconstancies, and continue to address them. A recent article in the Christian Century suggests that Christians have become to nice, and push a morally relativistic religion. I’m not going to get into the details of that article, except to say that if we don’t push people on their articulation of their faith, a mushy, nice religion is what we get.

So ask questions. Don’t be a wuss.

Signed,
Dr. Prick, soon to be PhD.

In the Paper part 2

The aforementioned article is finally online. Enjoy?

Four Snap Z Formation ATTITUDE!

The dissertation is almost, almost, almost done, but not yet. Today, in the midst of studying, working on a crossword, and reviewing someone’s ordination paper for Sunday I starting reading an essay by Michel Foucault. Horray, something new! This essay is from The Foucault Reader edited by Paul Rabinow – titled: What is Enlightenment. I haven’t finished the essay, and I still have the audacity to write about it. Meh.

Anyway, here is what I liked; it is a comment about modernity:

I wonder whether we may not envisage modernity rather as an attitude than as a period of history. And by “attitude,” I mean a mode of relating to contemporary reality; a voluntary choice made by certain people; in the end, a way of thinking and feeling; a way, too, of acting and behaving that at one and the same time marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task.

I like this idea of modernity as an attitude rather than a moment in history. On one level that is basically what all the captured and dissected moments of time are, naming the prevailing attitudes of the day. That’s all fine and good if we don’t care about the minority voices, which I understand we don’t because it makes history and philosophy to messy and complicated. It is better to just name the victors and lump the thoughts of the masses into a singular, or sometimes two categories.

What if we took this to describe different groups of people? What if political parties were attitudes? Republican would be an attitude of denial, of embracing wealth, hard earned wealth by my grandfather that I deserve via my trust fund. It is currently an attitude of small government until a Republican is in office, etc. Democrats, on the other had, embrace the attitude of continuing to smack their head against the wall thinking that maybe the next time it wont hurt, the attitude of greater bureaucracy in order to fix a problem, and avoiding any real convictions and fire when it comes to different issues. The fun thing about this is you can not say what Democrat or Republican stands for, but instead what the ethos, the feeling or attitude of the groups are. They will shift from time to time, with basic tendencies.

Think about this with Christianity. What if Christianity is not a set of beliefs or doctrines, but instead attitudes toward life, others, and the idea of God? If that were the case than I would say that most people seem to treat God as a 8 – 10 year old child sitting on a chair who demands to be kept happy through songs praising how awesome this child is. Self-esteem issues? Or the attitude of some Christians seems to be that God is sleeping and we need to be as quiet and dull as possible so we don’t wake God up. Some seem to think that God only listens to them and no one else. I won’t even start about attitudes towards others.

It seems to me that when we consider the attitudes of groups and individuals when take away a lot of the window dressing that people can hide behind. It may be a good way to consider people.

Then again, after reading this, you may find yourself saying, “he has got some attitude!”

Thoughts for Isaiah 58:9-14, Taking naps on Sunday

It has been a little while since I have posted something substantial, and I’m afraid to say that it is going to be a little while longer. We are now in vacation time, so the posts will slow down a little bit. I do have to preach one more sermon before I go away, so here are some thoughts:

MAIN IDEA – I always feel like I could and probably should do better. I look at the days and weeks that I haven’t read the Bible, that I haven’t prayed with sincerity and devotion and I feel like I could do better. I notice those times when my actions have become routine and rote and I realize that there is an emptiness in me and I could do better. When I feel this way my usual first reaction is to adopt a system, a schedule, a routine that will make my life better. I think that if I just controlled my life more, if I just made myself read the Bible and at least go through the motions of praying, then I would do better. Even if I don’t feel better at least I could say that I was doing something and that should count for something.

More often than not this does not work. More often than not I find myself resenting the morning Bible readings, the forced prayer, and I think I am drawn further away from God. At best I am a hollow shell offering forced prayers. At worse I am a bitter individual forcing prayers. Neither are good.

The scripture calls me to consider reconnecting with God before doing anything else. It does call for actions, for taking care of the least, but it also calls for a recognition of the Sabbath. As a pastor this is not an easy thing to do, but one that I must take seriously. The Sabbath is a working day for me, but it should also be a day to reconnect. To reconnect means to find harmony in my relationship with God, with others, with nature, and with myself. That is why for many the Sabbath is supposed to be a day of rest. But it shouldn’t be a forced rest. It shouldn’t be a forced worship. It should be free and honest. Can I imagine taking the Sabbath and really using it to regain that connection with my family? Can I imagine taking the Sabbath and really using it to regain that connection with my faith? In all honesty, it is something that I need to do, something that I cannot avoid. Can I do it?

Free me from a sense of obligation, Lord. Free me from that drive that leads me to think I only need to read scripture and say the right prayers to be a good Christian. The relationship I have come from you, God. You are found in those relationships. May I use the Sabbath as a way to find you again, to find moments of rest, and to find harmony in my life.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – While it may seem obvious, the relational nature of God is key in this, specifically that God is found in relationships. Such a concept comes from a specific view of the Trinity emphasizing the mechanics of the relational nature of the Trinity – that all are equal, and that each dwell within each other while maintaining their individuality. In our relationships with others, when they are at their best we find God. Consider Volf, Fiddes, Zizioulus, and the Capadocians. Also consider Buber.

Secondly, this seems to address the idea of works vs. faith. While there are works in worship and reconnection, these works must come out of faith. A faith that is rote is empty. A faith that is relational is deep and profound. Consider Luther and Augustine.

Finally, this speaks to the nature of worship. There is not a right way to worship or a wrong way, there is just the way is authentic in one’s relationship with God. In the same way of thinking, there is not a right or a wrong approach to the Sabbath, just a way that honors one’s relationships. Consider Heschel.

Luke 12:49-56 - A Prelude to Getting Angry

Well, this is the second time that I have done this, so I guess that makes this a series. Again, I am not printing the sermon – go to the website to find that, or ask me nicely (like $300 nicely). These are the thoughts and theological ideas behind the sermon for this Sunday (8/15). So for the 2-3 church members who look at this blog, you have a leg up on what will bore you. For the 3-4 other people who just can’t make it all the way to RI, assuming that you are going to go to some church service on Sunday, while you are sitting, restless, sleepy, and bored listening to your preacher you can wonder, “What would the theosnob have preached?” Hmm… maybe I’ll make some bracelets and such with WWTTHP or WWTHP or WWTP depending on what specific words are seen as essential. Probably WWTP, maybe it is time to hire a marketing expert…

MAIN IDEA – We don’t want to make waves. We don’t want to cause problems, we don’t want to upset people nor do we want people upset at us. I often keep silent about my ideas, my belief, and my faith because I don’t want others to not like me, to judge me, or to avoid me. It is easier to keep things calm and quiet. I say that we need to focus on bigger things, and to a large degree this is true. Yet a vague message will lead to vague Christians and perhaps there are times when it is appropriate to speak with certainty and specificity.

On the other hand, it is not helpful to cause trouble just for the sake of causing trouble. It is not helpful to stir the pot, to get people excited and angry, because then people are so focused on the little picture that they miss the big picture.

I preach inclusion. I preach that everyone is welcome in the church regardless of one’s theological, political, social ideas. Is this a tolerance that is too passive? Can there be a church of opposing ideas and opinions or is this the house that Christ has come to divide?

God, help me to be true to my faith. Help me to stay true to you and the path you have set before me. At the same time, help me to realize those moments when I might be wrong. Help me to listen to others with compassion, to keep my mind and heart open while holding fast to your presence, to scripture, and to the faith that I have received. In every way, may I show the love of Christ so that your truth will be known. May I have the courage to do so. Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – At first I assumed that this passage was about conviction and passion and courage, and in many ways it is. Yet, the approach I am taking looks at one’s source of authority for revelation of knowledge concerning theology. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral suggests that some rely on experience as the primary way that God can be known, other rest on tradition, and others on knowledge. Some will then say that Scripture is always in the middle of these sources of authority, yet I agree with those who would argue that scripture is another corner in the square. Scripture can be secondary to reason, experience, or tradition. Or, scripture can be primary.

With all of these different ways of understanding our faith how can we assume that there will be a consciousness concerning God, Christ, scriptural interpretation, or anything. Thus, this becomes a question of discernment as well as revelation.

Finally, Lindbeck, and McClendon’s take on language, rules, doctrine, and speech-act theory may offer some direction. If one’s speech (actions are included as speech) is contrary to other aspects of speech (actions), then perhaps such a dissonance merits further investigation.

In the Paper!

This blog has made it to actual print (as opposed to virtual print)! That’s right, the local East Greenwich paper has finally recognized my blogging brilliance (or needed some crap to fill up space). You can’t find this article online so you have to go and spend the money on the Thursday, August 5, 2010 Pendulum. Send $20 and a self-addressed envelope and I’ll send you back a copy of the article.

Anyway, now I have this pressure to continue blogging in a witty, wry manner. I also feel that I have to point out the absurdities of the world (like the possible 14th amendment change saying that just because you were born here doesn’t mean you can be a citizen. Shouldn’t that retroactively remove all of our citizenship? Ah, then we would all have to leave and then the government would not have to spend billions of dollars on silly things like education, roads, healthcare, social security, and any other service organization. Brilliant!)

Anyway, for the two or three other people who come to check out this blog because you read the article and thought, “Surly this can’t be real.” Yes it is, and stop calling me Shirley (heh).

Despite my recent rise to fame I will continue to be the humble theological snob that I have been since the inception. I will continue to offer mediocre posts with big words that make it look like I know more than I do, and I promise to continue to make this blog as boring as possible. That means no video posts (which are oh, so flashy and catchy).

Perfection!

I am in the process of editing my dissertation, looking for errors, and trying to make sure that everything is perfect. I have decided to ignore Paul Tillich’s claim that all humans are finite. If I accept that claim then I will have to accept that I will not be able to produce a perfect dissertation. So for now may Tillich and his finite, limited, world be damned (along with Kant, Plato, Hume, and all others)!

Hebrews 11:103, 8-16 - A Prelude to Substance and Proof

As I have written previously, I am against simply posting a sermon as a blog post. I think it is a cheap way to sqeeze out a post (yeah, that's right - I'm talking to you preacher-boy). However, I am not against posting thoughts that are part of the forming of a sermon. This is't completely cheap, only half cheap. Below are my very own personal thoughts about the sermon I am preaching on 8-8-10. Feel free to offer any thoughts, etc. as always (come on, preacher-boy, what do you got?).

MAIN IDEA – faith is about the journey and the destination / faith means we are going towards something real, something promised. We may not get there, we may not see it, but we have the substance of the promise and we have the proof of belief that fuels all of our actions. Faith is not stationary, but active.

One of the reasons I entered into the ministry is because I see the pain of the world and I believe the church is the way to address that pain. I could have been a social worker, a politician, or a doctor, but I am a pastor because I believe the grace of God is the balm we all need individually and socially.

Holy God, remind me again and again of your promises. Remind me that you promise to guide me and lead me. Remind me that you promise to be with me and that through the cross I know that you promise to love me no matter what. On this day may I remember and embrace the hope that I am heading somewhere in my faith and my life. On this day may I embrace the hope that all that I am doing, with my vocation, with my studies, and with my family are ways of moving closer to you individually and collectively. May that be the vision that I can embrace in this message, that you are working with us, that you are guiding us and our lives and our work is not in vain.
Amen

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – realized eschatology, i.e. we are working with God in realizing the Kingdom. Faith – believing in something promised. This is not the same as grace, but instead is something that we claim. Grace is offered by God; it is God’s actions. Faith is something that we do, we believe in the promises and the presence and the person of Christ and God. This is similar to hope as Multmann suggests it. Hope, in the Christian context, is a belief in something that is promised to happen, it is not a wish. Faith has that future orientation, but at the same time has a present orientation. The substance of faith is the reality of the promise that helps us in the here and now with assurance in what we are doing as Christians.

I Demand that there be Hope

Today I listened to an interview Terry Gross had with Richard Cizik, former vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals on Fresh Air. He would fired in 2008 after an interview with Terry Gross where he stated he could support civil unions for homosexuals. People freaked and Cizik was thrown to the street.

Since then he has started a new organization called the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. Good for you Cizik!

What heartens me is that Cizik is sharing a message of Jesus Christ, of personal salvation, but with an openness to other beliefs and views. He is sharing a message that states equality for all even if he doesn’t agree with their views and practices. Kinda sounds like Roger Williams, except that Cizik is a nice guy and Williams was an s.o.b.

That is all fine and good, but what really heartens me is that Cizik was willing to change and is still willing to change. He may end up in a place where he says that he was wrong about his pro civil union views, or he may end up in a place where he endorses Gay marriage. Regardless, he is willing to change.

This is not a simple thing for many people. There are many radical, tree-hugging, leftists who are so stuck in their views that they may never budge from their claim that by breeding flies we are breeding the potential for more and more wind power (just take some Aunt Jemima syrup, a couple of cardboard strips for wings, some foil, and watch the flies carry you away… thanks Frank for the thought). On the other hand there are many radical, God-loving, flag wearing, gun toting conservatives who will not budge from their claim that the only way to be free is to make sure the government ensures the lack of gun control, throws out anyone who looks foreign, and drops all taxes (screw the poor and the elderly and the weak and the children – they should take care of themselves).

On both sides there are people who are not willing to be moved, to have their ideas challenged, and their minds changed. This is probably one of the biggest struggles and issues in our churches and in our nation, people putting their fingers in their ears and going, la,la,la,la,la. Cizik’s openness to be challenged and change gives me hope. But then again, I could be wrong.

Because I could not stop to read poetry, It kindly stopped for Me...

In my constant effort to make myself a well rounded person (so I can roll with the rest of em’) I have been reading Emily Dickinson. There are a couple of things I need to admit.

First, I was a music major in college. Being a music major meant that I was supposed to practice, practice, learn some theory and history, practice, and practice some more. So I did not have the opportunity to read many of the “great works” of Western literature.

Second, I have never really read any poetry or taken any poetry class in high school or beyond. I’ve read some Wordsworth and some Whitman, but not with a teacher or class to help me sharpen my critical eye.

Third, aren’t guys supposed to hate the touchy, feely poetry kind of stuff? I’m already married so I don’t need to cull Dickinson for poems to put in a note for my beloved – not that I would find much that would be uplifting (I was going to put the famous poem, “Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me…” in a Valentine card, but then thought the better of it).

So I am drifting in a sea of ignorance and a lack of education trying to read and get something out of Dickinson. I have to be honest, it is not easy. Whitman was much easier as was Wordsworth, but Dickinson is so subtle and so profound that I am finding it a little difficult. My hope is that by the time I get to poem 146 I will have gotten used to Dickinson’s style of writing that I will be able to engage at a deeper level.

I am moved slightly by the poems. Something stirs when I read Dickinson, either a sense of peace, or a moment to take a breath, or a sigh. It is not something that I can accurately articulate or describe because I am not completely sure what I am reading. Yet, as with all great works of art, the poems to evoke some kind of reaction even for this untrained snob.

Emily Dickinson is considered (often alongside Whitman) America’s greatest poet and I could have easily have gone my whole life without reading a single line of her poetry. I imagine this is the case for many people. The idea of reading her poetry is daunting, it is as if one must have an English degree to even think about trying to read such works. Yet, if these poems are so great, shouldn’t they be in the hands of the people?

Often the Academy builds walls around great works of art with offerings of the “correct” interpretation making the novice feel small and stupid. I do not disparage the Academy, after all I am very much a part of the Academy. Yet I do disparage the idea that such works of art are beyond the experience of the populous. We need the depth, but we also should feel free to just read and experience and enjoy.

Here is what I think we should do – start putting Dickinson poems on billboards, except probably not the “Because I could not stop for Death” poem. That may give the wrong impression.

Afterthought: For those who are saying, “Hey, this has nothing to do with theology,” I will give you these thoughts. Should the Bible be explained or just placed in the hands of the people? Is their a “correct” interpretation of scripture and/or way to be a Christian, or are there correct ways? Chew on that and stop your moaning.