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.