Your Kinda Basic Sorta Standard Easter Post

I suppose I should write something about Easter and resurrection and stuff since it is that time of year. I recently heard another pastor say that the person/revelation of Jesus as the Christ was so powerful that for the disciples his presence was always felt even after Jesus’ death. So in a sense that Christ’s presence is always felt he rose again. A real resurrection probably did not occur.

Hmm…

How does one preach such an idea on Easter? Does one preach that the idea of Jesus beat death and the values of Jesus were continued past his life? Instead of saying, “Christ is risen,” we can yell, “the presence of Christ continues with us,” and the response will be, “in such a way that we are led to believe that Christ rose from the dead.” Powerful stuff.

I was raised in a liberal context, studied liberal theology, and understand this line of thinking but I cannot follow that path. Such an idea, to me, takes power out of the resurrection and does not make Jesus that much more different than other greats in our history. Beyond that, such a way of looking at the resurrection does not put power in God’s hands. This is power of hope over despair and forgiveness over sin. Now I am not ascribing to an atonement theology (gasp!), but instead one that assures me that no matter how much I fall, God will not let me go. God can break through any barrier I produce in my life.

So for me, in order to embrace the hope, grace, and life, Christ did rise, he had to rise from the dead.

Now I do not believe that faith and truth need always intersect; I turn to the Bible as an authoritative source of my faith but I do not believe everything in the Bible to be true (double gasp!). So I do not know if the resurrection of Jesus really happened, but that is not important. What really happened and what I believe may or may not be the same thing. What I believe is that Christ did rise from the dead and I won’t waste my time with archeological digs, historical documents, and the like. I’m not a Biblical scholar, I’m a theologian and my place is in the realm of ideas. What I will spend my time on is thinking what the resurrection means to me, to others, to churches; what does it mean that Christ did raise from the dead. My liberal friend is looking for a way to connect truth with faith assuming a resurrection is not possible – this is not a healthy road to walk.

I know, this truth and faith dichotomy does not make much sense, but the truth is I cannot prove God exists, I cannot prove that there is grace, I cannot prove that Jesus is God incarnate, so I need to rest in faith in order to hold to these beliefs.

So by now I should have ticked off the liberals, shocked the conservatives, and confused the empiricists and the realists. Truth is held by the community my friends, sit with that and have a happy Easter.

Podcast!

Well the Podcast is finally online. Again, you can check out the blog at 12enough.blogspot.com
Hear the Podcast at itunes - 12enough
or link to the website: 12enough.libsyn.com

I'm Right Because I Can Yell Louder!

There are a couple of things I could comment on – maybe the brouhaha about painting pink toenails on a boy. My 5 year old has had purple fingernails for the past week, at his request, so I guess I am an abusive parent.

I’ve been looking at the idea of creation and the Kingdom of God in the New Testament, but that is old hat.

My sister gave a very powerful testimony at a church last week showing the power and theology of and in narrative.

But I think I will talk about close-minded liberals.

This past weekend another one of my sisters (not the testimony giving one) got married. It was a different ceremony than I am used to, a lot of emphasis on Ephesians 5 and the idea that the husband is the head of the household. My response: if that is what they want then good for them.

I shared this with the local clergy group the other day, noting that it was not my theological or liturgical cup of tea but not condemning it when one pastor asked me if there was a place from where I could make theological objections (or something like that). I think he was pushing my passive acceptance of the patriarchal model of marriage. After some conversation I asked him and the others if they thought such a marriage could be considered Christian; all (not including the Rabbi, she abstained) said no. One person proceeded to describe such a model for marriage as evil. They all said that they would not allow such a marriage to occur in their church.

Here is the thing. These people are very passionate about marriage equality and a Christian acceptance of gay marriage. There is a lot of complaining about those “conservatives” who will not open their minds and accept gay marriage as a very Christian act. That is all fine and good, but how can they then say that a different model of marriage, which many other Christians embrace, is not Christian and even evil? How is their close-minded approach to one view of scripture any different from the “conservative” approach? Something doesn’t smell right with this.

Ok, here is where we have some fun. I’ve started to read After Virtue by MacIntyre. I’ve only read the first three chapters but from that much I have found that he is working hard to convince the reader that the major approach of morality ethics today is one of emotivism. Very, very basically this approach says that truth is subjective but presented in an objective way. His example, “This is good,” really is “I experience this as good and want you to do the same.” MacIntyre is claiming that our morality is based on such a subjective, experiential approach. So what I encountered with my liberal colleagues was a response steeped in emotivism even as they would claim that their response was scripturally and theologically sound.

So the moral is: don’t be so sure of yourself because you are probably wrong.

New Post and Podcast

Well, the podcast is coming soon, but there is a post on the related blog: 12enough.blogspot.com

read and enjoy!

Guns n' Jesus

I couldn't think of anything good that rhymed with "roses"


Check this out, I’m going to connect gun control and the Lord’s Supper. Ready?

I read today in a past Christian Century (March 8, 2011) that a number of states are considering laws to make it legal to bring a gun to places of worship. It is no surprise that many pastors are for these laws and many pastors are against these laws. What I found interesting is that those who spoke against such laws used the same reasoning that others use for allowing guns in public spaces. People could get hurt. There may be a lot of confusion. Cops wouldn’t know who the “bad guy” was. Don’t bad guys wear a black turtleneck and a robber mask (or ski mask)?

No one said anything about the theological implications connected with having a gun in church. What does it say when we feel that as we pray to and worship Jesus we think it is important to have armed guards around us, protecting us? Perhaps we are missing the irony that as we look to Jesus, who did die on the cross, we can handle the piece strapped to our thigh. Yes, it is a good, a very good statement to allow guns in church. It says a lot about our trust in God and our commitment to Jesus (note the dripping sarcasm).

I have also been thinking about inclusion and the Lord’s Supper for a theological group I’m in (Rhode Island Baptist Theological Circle – second oldest in the country!). One of the issues that come up with inclusion is uniformity of belief. If we have different people believing different things can we all continue to gather around the table? Put aside all of your trans-con-omni-theology of the elements and enjoy the glory of a Baptist approach for a moment with such a question.

While we say it is a memorial act, there is a communal aspect to the act as we gather around the table. In the ritual of the Lord’s Supper I would argue that there is a moment that we are all experiencing the kingdom of God in our actions, if we all hold to similar beliefs. These beliefs are broad (believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior), but important to bind us as a community. Now, if someone feels that a gun is a necessary part of the worshipping community I think they are missing a large part of the idea of the kingdom and the Lordship of Jesus Christ and will not be full in communion with others at the table. Guns (or any weapon for that matter) have no place at the table of the Lord.

Granted I have made a number of theological leaps in this post, but that is the joy of blogging. It was pretty impressive how I went from gun control to the Lord’s Supper, wasn’t it?