Less Worship, More Voting!

Reflections on a Biennial

So I realized that the last post wasn’t very funny, and if I’m not funny then no one will want to read this and I’ll lose all of my readers and then I’ll lose my sponsorship, and then my children will have to go work in the factory for a penny a day so that we can continue to eat food (as opposed to eating non-food). I will do my upmost to make my reflections on the ABC Biennial humorous, or at least slightly amusing.

Here is one big take-away: worship services are long. I know my church folks complain about my sermons from time to time and I don’t heed their complaints to much, yet when you have one or two services every day the length starts to get very noticeable. Granted, the sermons, the music, the readings, and many other things were very good, but very long.

Another take-away: Puerto Rico is very hot and very cold. Outside it was muggy and warm. Inside the air conditioning was blasting. Maybe next time we should make sure our Biennial does not happen concurrently with the Penguin Convention.

One more take-away: don’t over-sell your point. Some of you may remember my post from the Biennial two years ago when the by-laws for the denomination did not pass. This year one person, a regional executive minister who is very unassuming, spoke fairly freely about the by-laws, the listening they did in the two years, and the changes that were made. There were statements made for and against and then the vote passed with 44 against around 500 for making 92% in favor of the motion. This is very different from two years ago.

What happened was they (the leadership of the denomination) did not force the sell and listened to representatives from churches. I suppose there is some kind of lesson that can be learned, but I refuse to listen to anyone who my think they know what that lesson might be.

Can Baptists do Theology?

Reflections on a Theology Conference

On July 23 and 24 I attended a Baptist conference on Theology in Puerto Rico. It was specifically for American Baptists.

It was refreshing to be able to talk openly and freely about being American Baptist from a theological perspective. I didn’t have to explain the difference between American Baptists and other kinds of Baptists, I didn’t have to explain terms like “soul freedom,” or “church autonomy,” and I didn’t have to talk in a fluffy, pastoral way about the importance of identity, credentials, or history.

Here is one basic take-away: we need to claim who we are, our identity.

All of the plenary speakers, Townes, Leonard, and Ramirez all spoke to the ideas of sharing stories, claiming history, and claiming a memory that looks to liberate narrative and symbols. So often our idea of what it means to be American Baptist is based on our memory from the past 50 years when we have more than 400 years to pull from.

Here is where I look smart – MacIntyre’s book, After Virtue, talks about the narrative of the community informing the identity and the virtues of the individual. The community has a story about moving towards the good (doing the right thing) and in those stories we find a continuity of virtues guiding actions. The individual has a history in the community and is shaped by his or her personal history as well as the narrative and history of the community.

We are Christians. We are Baptists. We are American Baptists. We have a story, an identity, and it is right to let them shape who we are and how we live.

Fluffy God-Language

It has been six full days that I have now been here in Puerto Rico. One would think that I have been having a great time, but I have been in meetings, bathing in the florescent lights and breathing the conditioned, forced air.

Even now I am sitting in a meeting. This is fun, fun, fun.

In the General Board meetings I am hearing again and again how the denomination has many issues, challenges, and difficulties before it. Churches are shrinking, giving has decreased, passion for the Gospel has diminished, and the denomination is spiraling in what seems to be a destructive cycle.

The conversation has been interesting because we look at the bottom line, the finances, and the structural/institutional challenges before us and things look dim. Yet on the other hand we are a religious organization/creature and we bring theological language into the mix again and again. Here are some of the things have I heard:

“There is a future for what God has promised us…”
“God tells us, do not be afraid…”
“The Holy Spirit is working with us…”
“The grace of Jesus is all we need….”
“God is still walking with us…”

These phrases suggest a sense of hope on the unrealistic. If one where to bring a business model with such phrases as justification for the risks taken as well as assurance that things would go well we would be laughed at. Yet we are a people of faith and we need to have one foot in the grace and faith of God through Christ.

It is not easy to hold onto passion and faith in these meetings. The lighting and the artificial air makes it difficult to hold to a sense of faith and God’s presence. That is the moment when the institution arises and the faith and passion dies.

This is what will kill us so it is important to hold onto our faith and to be unrealistic as best we can. Maybe one of those pie-in-the-sky statements about God holds some truth…
 

Loving the Living with Baptists in Puerto Rico

I have now been at the ABC/USA Biennial for two full days and here are my vitals:
I still have a pulse
I still love Jesus
I still love being a pastor
I still love being a Baptist
Vials are good. Things are going well.

I started by participating with the gathering of Baptist theologians and scholars. I heard a number of very good papers, and had the opportunity to share my own paper. I suppose at some point I am going to have to say something about all that, but not just yet. Overall, that was a very good experience.

The Biennial started in earnest on Friday afternoon with a sermon and presentation about missional church (a catchy term for something that has been happening for a long time), followed by a dinner hosted by the Unity Committee on which I sit, and then evening worship. All were good enough.

The highlight of the evening was the Morehouse College Glee Club. I have to be honest, there are not many times during worship experiences at these that I feel moved or connected, but this time I was. They were powerful, they were sincere in their singing, and they were f*ckin awesome! It was good to have a moment when I could let go of having a “convention” mentality and simply worship.

Today starts another day of Baptist hoopla. I am sure it is going to be just fine. But then again, I woke up with a headache and we are voting on the proposed ABCUSA bylaws. That does not bode well.

New Blog Link

Steve Harmon posted a very nice link about my dissertation on his blog, so in return for the favor I am putting the link to his site on the "blogs I like..." list.

Its a 3-Way!

Pentecost is here. We all know what that means: we get to focus on the Holy Spirit! Hooray! We know what else that means – the following week is Trinity Sunday. Fun, fun, fun!

I find it interesting that the Trinity, something that is held as a central part of Christianity, is something that is seldom taught in Protestant churches (I can’t speak for Catholics). More often than not I find parishioners struggling with the idea of the Trinity, not really understanding the need or necessity of such a convoluted doctrine. I have even had conversations with other pastors who suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity was a historical necessity but is no longer contextually, socially, or theologically relevant .

Every Pentecost I hear the whining and lamenting that we don’t spend enough time teaching the Holy Spirit but I don’t hear the whining that we lack the time and teaching about the Trinity. Yet I don’t think the majority of parishioners understand or appreciate the complex nuances in Trinitarian theology. What good is knowledge of the Holy Spirit without an understanding of the Trinity?

If pushed against the wall about having Jesus be God, then we must be polytheists, or have a hierarchy between God and Jesus taking away from the importance of the cross, or we need to have a Trinity of mutual indwelling. Or we can take away the divinity of Christ and things get very easy to explain except for the role and importance of the cross. The Trinity is important.

Of course I’m not just complaining about the lack of Trinitarian knowledge but theological, Biblical, and historical knowledge over all. We just happen to be coming up on Pentecost and Trinity Sunday so that is where my griping will lead. You will note that I am griping but not explaining the nuances and complexities of Trinitarian theology. Maybe next time.

If You Don't Go to Church Then You are Going To...

Down with church-shopping!

I say this for a couple of reasons. First, it just doesn’t do well for my self-esteem. I feel much better about myself when people visit my church and then stay there. You don’t need to go elsewhere, I have everything you need right here, so why keep looking? I guess it is ok when people leave other churches to check out my church, but otherwise I am against it.

Heh

A more serious reason why we need to be careful with church shopping and poor attendance is that when people jump from church to church they never become a part of a community. If someone is not a consistent part of a community than that person does not learn the values and virtues (and theology) of that community. That individual will not grow.

I have recently been engaged in a “conversation” on Facebook with a whole bunch of Baptist pastors concerning style and aesthetics of worship vs. theology of worship. Obviously a stodgy individual like myself will be for theology over anything fun, beautiful, or moving.

As I have been following the conversation and offering my humble thoughts from time to time I have noticed a theme suggesting the notion that in a well thought-out and crafted service the theology will be implicit. One need not lecture theological doctrine or force people to memorize creeds. The people worshipping will embrace the theology of the community, probably unknowingly, and will live out that theology.

I’m still plowing through MacIntyre’s After Virtue and just read the following statement which is apropos:

…morality is always to some degree tied to the socially local and particular and that the aspiration of the morality of modernity to a universality freed from all particularity is an illusion; and second that there is no way to possess the virtues except as part of a tradition in which we inherit them… (third edition, 126-127)

So here is the kicker. If we are not a consistent part of a local tradition, engaged in the practices on a regular basis, then we will not know or understand the morality/theology of that community. To shop around, or have spotty attendance is a decidedly a-theological move that will lead to an atrophy of faith. Yes, people will enjoy the spectacle of worship from time to time, but the grammar of the community/faith will never be learned.

So go to church, damnit! Preferably mine, but if you must, find some other one, make a commitment, and try to get there on a regular basis. Unless, of course, you are happy with your less then mediocre relationship with Christ.

You're Not Going to Like This

I am sure that there are a million plus blog posts, commentaries, and thoughts on this subject, and I don’t like to be a part of the popular stream. Yet something about the very recent news of Osama Bin Laden’s death has moved me and I feel that I should write something for the three or four of you that read this.

It is more about the reaction than anything else that moves me. So I am writing a reaction to a reaction.

What I would like to offer is a Christian response to this news. This is not a flag-waving-country-loving-yellow-ribbon-patriotic response, but a response that comes out of the life, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In a word, I grieve. I grieve because with the death of Bin Laden something is lost. It is not that I am lamenting the absence of Bin Laden on this planet. He was someone who was very twisted, who was full of hatred and blind because of his rage. I am lamenting the loss of the possibility of reconciliation.

This is what the cross is about, humanity being reconciled to God through the death and resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is assurance of our reconciliation and such reconciliation should be shared through humanity. We are called to reconcile our hurts, wounds, and pains with each other and with God.

Maybe you say that such a call for reconciliation is only among Christians, but I will look to such parables as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son as examples of taking the outsider in. If all people are God’s children, and if all are divine in the eyes of God, then there was a potential for grace in Bin Laden. Yes, he is responsible for some of the most heinous actions in current human memory and he needed to be held accountable for such actions but death takes away the potential for reconciliation.

Perhaps some of you feel that such reconciliation was impossible, but so was the resurrection and we have been celebrating that for two weeks now.

I’m not blaming the military – from what it sounds like, they did what they could to capture him and the level of engagement made a live capture impossible. I’m not blaming the government for it is a system that works on a different set of values and morals than we do. I don’t think there is anyone I can or should blame. What I am doing is lamenting the jubilation that many people, people who profess to be Christians, are embracing.

We live in a broken, violent world. 9/11 was a horrific symptom of that brokenness. The violent death of Bin Laden is a symptom of that brokenness. So as a Christian I cannot rejoice or celebrate on this day but grieve the violence, the hatred, and the loss of hope that we all find ourselves apart of.

May God’s kingdom come, and may it come soon.

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?

Body Sculpting

I have started to till the land for my garden and I am a little sore. It is almost as if my body is protesting the work and telling me to just get in the car and drive to the grocery store. There are vegetables there ready for the picking.

We are victims of and servants to our bodies. This is in part the argument that Hervé Juvin makes in his book The Coming of the Body. In the introduction Juvin states, “…that body has established itself over and above our individual and collective choices. It has taken power,” (ix). Our longevity of life, our emphasis on appearance, our values focused on health and the way we treat our body are all relativity new innovations, or so Juvin states. We are free to chose our own skin color, our hair color, our sexuality, and the way we look – the body has demand our focus and attention.

I think Juvin has a point and it is a good one. I do think we focus on our bodies. Our bodies are an economical commodity and a marketplace all of its own. Yet on another level I wonder if we focus on our bodies enough.

We control and shape our bodies so much that they are no longer real. Our bodies are fabricated. What if we went for a day or two without deodorant and just dealt with the smell? What if we spent time writing letters with a pen and paper (gasp!) and allowed our arm to get sore? What if we sat through a worship service and listened to the music (good or bad) and the sermon (good or bad) and let our cheeks grow numb? What if we accepted our impending baldness and the growing softness of our belly? Then the body will still be a part of our lives, but not in the same way.

Juvin does make this point that we have controlled our bodies to a point where suffering and pain are seen as completely negative and void of any redeeming values. He calls us to suffer with our bodies, if only for a little bit. I agree. So, you can stop suffering through this blog post and get off your butt and walk to your next thing. Go outside and get dirty and then don’t shower. Write me a letter about how much you hate writing letters. But please, keep your deodorant!

So Tell Me, How Does It Feel?

How do you talk about spirituality or sacramentality with Baptists? It is not an easy thing to do because so many Baptists were brought up understanding a spiritual moment as the climax in the sermon leading into the altar call, or that one private moment of conversion, or listing to the Gathers sing. It is a very narrow view of spirituality and spiritual moments. I would argue that we have a deeper spirituality that can be seen in many aspects worship, the Lord’s Supper, baptism, ordination, and other aspects of Christian life. Although we don’t like to use the word, “sacramentality” because it sounds to Catholic and we certainly don’t want to be seen as popish, it does look to a deeper, more developed view of an awareness of God’s presence in the world. Finally, thanks to Schleiermacher and his caustic liberal agenda, the topic itself tends to be so individualistic that it can be difficult to speak of spirituality on a communal level.

Rather than addressing spirituality directly it may be better to address it from different angles. Perhaps if one were to talk about spirituality as it is perceived in the sermon, the Lord’s Supper, ordination, etc., one would have various avenues to follow towards this central question. This is what I am going to try to do, to look at one part of Baptist life at a time and then to look at the spirituality of each part of life.

Not an easy task, not a short project, but one that should have solid depth.

So next I will look at William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience to get ideas on how one might articulate the spiritual experience in a Protestant/Baptist experience. Stay tuned, and keep singing, “Just as I Am” until you are ready to come forward and accept Jesus into your hear.

Be Careful What You Say

I just read a very articulate and interesting article by Miroslav Volf in The Christian Century (March 8, 2011) titled “Allah and the Trinity.” In this article Volf carefully responds to a number of objections Muslims traditionally have concerning the Christian Trinity pointing out that a large part of the problem is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. As he states, “The Qur’an’s objections do not address normative Christian beliefs about God.” I’m not going to get into the specifics of Volf’s article but instead urge people to read it. What I do want to point out is how important it is for people to be careful with their words when describing what they believe or ascribe to.

For example, Volf makes the point that there is a difference between stating “God was Christ” vs. “Christ was God.” The first suggests that God is a creature and the second suggests a sense of incarnation in the fully divine and human nature of Christ. It is a subtle but very important difference.

Our speech is so often very, very sloppy (myself included). We often spout out ideas without thinking over syntax and grammar and make statements that at best misrepresent ourselves and at worse lead to another round of crusades. This is why not only it is important to study our theology, but (and it pains me to say this as a Baptist) we should study the language of the early theologians, current theologians, and of the creeds. They contain statements that were carefully thought out and that hold great depth of meaning.

Maybe we like to put things in our own words, and that is fine. Just be sure that what you are saying is as accurate as what tradition offers if not better.

Afterthought: We need to take the grammar of Christianity seriously (hooray for Lindbeck, McClenden, and Wittgenstein), and we need to learn our history. I am not advocating for a liturgical use of creeds in Baptist life.

Keep it Short

A couple of things going on. The good Rev. Charley Eastman and I are going to be hosting a podcast starting in April. This is a part of my continuing effort to be as narcissistic as possible through the internet. Podcast name is 12enough, website is 12enough.com (it is not up and running so prepare for a let down), and the e-mail is 12ecast@gmail.com. We will also have a Facebook page. I will post something when the first episode is released – topic is Stryper and the Contemporary Christian Music world.

I’m slogging through Hervé Juvin’s The Coming of the Body. It is a good book that makes some alarming observations on today’s Western society and draws some even more alarming conclusions about the observations.

Working on a sermon series concerning spirituality and the arts. Last week we did music and this week it is the Fine Arts.

Finally, during the podcast Charley noted that my posts were a bit on the long side. Of course I will not change my blogging habits to please the masses, but maybe I will try to keep things a little more succinct.

So… this is probably long enough for now, but in case you wanted something meaty to chew on, here is a quote from Juvin’s book:

“The deprived and suffering body has become our performing one, a body for pleasure and an endless initiation into all the joys of living. And this body, its rhythm and its lifespan, are going to overturn our relations with money, our patrimony and provision for the future, as they have already overturned our relations with work, as they have already transformed our identity, our difference … and as they continue to do.”

Down with Literally!

I dislike the word “literally.”

This wasn’t always the case. I used to look at such a word with fondness, knowing that when I wanted to be clear about something I could always turn to such a word. Yet such times are now past and I only look at this word with scorn and disgust. It started with a misuse of the term by many public speakers: “It literally covered the United States,” “he literally exploded with joy,” “I am literally going to go crazy if I hear that word again.” I understand that many are just ignorant or not thoughtful and I should not punish a word for others’ mistakes but a distance began to grow between “literally” and myself. I’m not alone in this rant; Kurt Anderson (author and radio host) has expressed a similar sentiment.

Now I have noticed that people are using the word correctly but in abundance. “He literally got up and ran.” “She literally fell out of her seat.” “They were literally speechless.” Yes, these are all correct, but not necessary. Why not just say, he got up and ran, she fell out of her seat, etc.? Do we think that people will not believe us unless we speak to the empirical realist epistemology that so many people practice? Do I need to use this word to express exactly what I am doing? And what does this say about our speech the rest of the time? I guess if I don’t hear the word “literally” I should not believe the content of what the person is saying. I probably should assume that everyone is speaking in metaphor. It is an overused, misused word that has become a scourge of or common parlance.

So down with the word “literally.” Strike it from your lexicon. Cast it out from your jargon. Wipe it from the annuals of your mind. If I hear this word again, I will go mad…literally!

Maybe a Modest Proposal

I get a weekly posting from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and saw in the most recent one that Representative Peter King from New York, soon to be chair of the Homeland Security Committee, plans to hold hearings on the “radicalization” of American Muslims. Before considering this approach, let’s put Islam aside (which is not a violent religion, and 80% of Islamic leaders are not radical clerics – it have written it, it is on the internet, so it must be true).

Put aside the very scary throwback to McCarthy and his march to rid the country of “Reds,” Commies, and all others who threaten the heart of America (didn’t he end up looking like a fool?).

Put aside the similarity to the fear people had when the openly Catholic Al Smith and later John F. Kennedy ran for president. Everyone was so sure that they would be pawns under the control of the Pope.

Put aside the danger of singling out one group of people and making them a scapegoat of our fear – we won’t try to make the connection to Germany and the Third Reich. I don’t want to pay that card.

Let’s also try not to make the connection to our treatment towards Native Americans calling all of them “savages” and only trusting those who are “westernized.”

Instead, I would like to encourage Representative King to continue with his plan and then to look into radical Protestants. There are many who preach about going against the government, about ignoring the prevailing culture, and sometimes a radical socialism (gasp!). He should also look into those who talk about a radical protection of human life except if it is someone who is doing someone you don’t like, or if you are over one hour out of the womb. After all, if a kid commits a crime he should do the time including death. I hope King looks into the Jewish and Christian community that is pro Palestine because it is run by what is considered a terrorist community. He should also look into those who are pro Israel, because how can they have complete allegiance to the United States and also be radically in favor of another nation? I hope King looks into the Quakers who try to embrace the simplistic life – it is obviously just a ruse to avoid paying taxes like many other radical, separatist groups have done in the past. I won’t say anything about different ethnicities, classes, and states – there just isn’t enough room to list all of the problems with each.

I want to applaud Representative King for doing the hard and difficult work to rid one religion of the extremists on their behalf. I don’t know how he has the time to study Islam, to learn about Islam in America, to do all of the data collection that he needs to do and gather all of the important data so he doesn’t just rely on the word of a number of Enforcement Officials, but he must. I hope he can do the same with all of the other groups that he surly intends to look into.

Tonight I will sleep soundly knowing that King has done the hard work of ridding the United States of all extremists and radicals, of anyone who openly totes a gun, who is mistrusting of the government, and who follows a holy book with a radical devotion over our sacred and blessed Constitution. Bravo Representative King, bravo.

The Devil Made Me Do It

A couple of things have been going on. I read the AAR article “Dianomy: Understanding Religious Women’s Moral Agency as Creative Conformity” by Elizabeth M. Bucar – liked it!

I also read the Christian Century article “Double Belonging” about people who consider themselves in two faith communities at once (Buddhist/Christians, Jewish/Christian, Islam/Christian). Don’t like it. The article is fine, but the idea of trying to be completely in both camps at the same time is weak at best. Just because you are bi-spiritual (or in an “open relationship” with your God) does not mean that you can sleep with two at once.

What I wanted to write was about language and rhetoric and spiritual images. Yup, once more on language. I was in Shawnee Kansas at Central Baptist Seminary last week spending a lot of time doing basically nothing with 25 other “Adaptive” leaders, when one person stood up in the back of the room and said:

“The Holy Spirit has moved me to ask for prayer.”

This was a fascinating statement that brought into question power and discourse. If this person just said, “I think we should pray” then it is just that person making the suggestion. We can understand that the individual is trying to persuade everyone else that prayer at this time would be good. It is a basic request that is easy to understand. But when someone says, “The Holy Spirit has moved me to ask for prayer,” the request changes in a big way because there is a depth of meaning in the phrase, “Holy Spirit.” We now have to try to understand what the person means by “Holy Spirit.” The difficulty with such a phrase is that many people will hear this term in many different ways with different theological level of authority. So when someone says, “the Holy Spirit led me to ask for prayer,” does that mean we have to stop everything and pray, or does that mean we need to talk about prayer, or does that mean we should pray but only in one specific way. The use of the term is vague and difficult to grasp. This becomes especially problematic when the individual is using the term with a sense of power and authority. In this case the individual was trying to gain control of the meeting, but the facilitator would not relent.

So what is the take-away? If nothing else, we in the religious world, need to be very careful with our terms. So often we use religious language (it says in the Bible, God’s plan, Jesus told me, etc…) with a sense of authority, but we are not sure if the person we are talking to understands the term in the same way that we do. It is one thing to throw such terms around willy-nilly but don’t expect others to understand what you mean.

If you don’t like this post, take it up with God. God told me to write every word here…

RIP Gibran - You Will Be Missed

It is an odd thing to write a eulogy of sorts about a family pet. I am sure that some will scoff, but a family member is a family member, and grief is grief. So I am going to offer her a tribute because she deserves is.

I cannot count the amount of times someone looked at Gibran (our dog) and saw wisdom and spirituality in her eyes. There was something knowing about her. I’ll never forget the day when we brought Anthony (our first born) home. Gibran was curious, but never threatened or threatening. She seemed to know instinctive the difference between her toys and Anthony’s toys. There really isn’t a big difference between dog toys and baby toys. This was how she was with each child that came home. She sniffed the baby and then went back to her own life. As the kids got older, Gibran knew that when she played with them she needed to be gentle and careful. She had a tender soul.

When the kids went outside I did not worry if Gibran was there. She would let us know if someone was around. When I went for hikes with Gibran I never put her on a leash because I knew she would not leave me, and she never did. I may not have been able to see her, but she could always see me. She kept squirrels out of the yard and protected our garden from rodents. She loved to go for walks and to play with me. Rebekah gave Gibran the love and attention, she would pet Gibran, but we had an attachment. I would walk her and it was good. I would feed her, and I would be with her when she would die. She wasn’t a puppy or even a pet but a companion to me. We did not need to speak much, we did not need to be cute together, we just seemed to understand each other.

To find someone who understands you, who is your companion but never says a word is a rear thing. To find someone whose quiet presence is comforting is a rear thing. Gibran was that comforting presence. She love to be doted on, she loved to be pet, but with me she would sit at my feet under the dinner table and I would enjoy her warmth on top of my toes.

I know that it will be a while before I truly miss her. It will be a while before I notice that I am no longer going on walks, that I no longer can watch her chase away the squirrels. It will be a while before I truly feel the absence. I will grieve now, but this is an immediate grief. The deep grief will come as I notice the ways my life has changed, the absence of her in my life.

For a pet, a companion, a friend I could not ask anything more from her. She was greatly loved in this family and she will be greatly missed.

This is something that my oldest son, Anthony, wrote:
Friday January 21, 2011,
Gibran is going to die today. She is 11 years old. Born in 1999 to 2010. It is hard to let go of her but it’s the right thing to do.
God, bring Gibran to heaven, and protect her there please. Amen.
Good bye Gibran. From Anthony Joseph Malone

A Pie in the Sky

Here are my thoughts for this Sunday's sermon. The text is Isaiah 9:1-4.

MAIN IDEA – It is difficult to preach about hope in a real way to people who are suffering. How does one suggest that things will get better when things are in a state of crap? How does one suggest that things will get better when in your own life things are difficult and seemingly lost? Again and again we find words of hope, but what does it offer that is real? I don’t want to start reading signs and stars and say that when someone dropped a dollar in front of me that is God helping me. That is shallow. Or that the prayer someone says for me is God helping me. How does that make a difference when my children are starving?

If I leave my comfortable, Western, middle class life, I have to look at the very real fact that people in this world assume that some of their children will not live to adulthood. There are people who assume that they will be bombed or ravaged by war and violence. There are people who struggle to live just because who they are. There are people who struggle and I’m supposed to preach about hope? It seems empty and shallow at best, cruel at worst.

Even now, making the turn to hope is a difficult thing when being honest. I’m expected to make the turn, but I don’t know if I can with authenticity. My desire is that I can hope in the promise and trust of God. My desire is to believe, Lord help my unbelief.

You said that people who walked in darkness have and will see a great light. Are you going to let the rest of the world see that light?

THEOLOGICAL IDEA – this evokes the hope of the resurrection. In every case, the worst that can happen is death. A child struggles, but hope is held to until the child dies and then it is assumed that all is lost. The crucifixion and the resurrection show us the way that the yoke has been broken. When we embrace the hope of the resurrection (a hope that goes beyond any sense of substitutionary atonement) then we can read the passage of Isaiah with the promise of God ringing in our hearts?

Afterthought to Words and Power

The clergy group in EG is putting together a statement on rhetoric. Here is the bit that I offered:

Words and images have meaning and power. It is very easy to forget this and to be seduced by rhetoric that is hateful, violent, and dehumanizing without realizing what it is that we are hearing. While I cannot state that one person or another is directly responsible for the tragedy in Arizona, the current national and political conversation about awakens us to the power of words and images. Violent images, words that creates those who disagree into “others” without human value or worth, and apocalyptic images evoking fear, are all dangerous and I believe abhorrent to God. We have a tradition of respect and understanding of the other. Let us recall, not only did Roger Williams feel it was important that everyone had the freedom to follow God as he or she was led, but that everyone be seen as a child of God regardless what path he or she took. Not only was Williams tolerant, but respectful with charity.

We follow a God of love who calls us to consider each person as precious no matter what he or she believes or does. We follow a God who values peace and mercy. The polemical tone that is such a part of the political discourse has no place in any faith community for it is antithetical to the nature of God.

I urge you to be vigilant of words and images that objectify others, that evoke violence, and that suggests hatred as the only response one can take.. Not only do I urge you to reject such discourse, but to call others away from it as well. Our God does not ask us to get our way no matter what, nor does our God call us to see every political issue as a dire moral moment for our country that justifies hatred. Instead we are all called to take a radical stand against those who embrace images and words of violence and show the profound love of God. Let us embrace and live the call of the prophet Micah in our own speech, rhetoric, and images: “…and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

Words, Rhetoric, and Fancy Pictures Have Meaning

Yesterday I read an article in the very popular American Academy of Religion about Hate Speech. For those of you who don’t believe anything that I write, the article is “Curses Left and Right: hate Speech and Biblical Tradition,” by Brian M. Britt. (AAR, v. 78, no. 3). Yes, that is not the proper way to cite a source, but this isn’t a publication that calls for that kind of criticism, so back off Kate Turibian.

Anyway, Britt was claiming that Hate Speech actually has power and can affect people. Despite the protection of the 1st Amendment (that pesky part of the Constitution that allows Yellow Journalism to happen i.e. Fox News, that allows commies to gather and that will not allow our children to recite brainwashing pseudo-Christian prayers in school), Britt is claiming that Hate Speech is not just a string of words but is an action in itself that holds power. He is using Austin which is good, but neglects Wittgenstein, which is bad, but that is a critique of his larger argument. Perhaps that will be for another time.

For the most part I like what Britt is claiming and I thought about this when I read the current criticism of Sarah Palin’s crossfire website picture and the Tuscan shootings. I am not going to say that Sarah Palin is directly responsible for the shooting, but I would say that the rhetoric has become a reality.

Despite the wussy and wimpy back peddling (that must be the Mama Grizzly way) that camp Sarah has been stating (it wasn’t meant to represent a target or suggest a gun; reload meant eat an energy bar, blah, blah, blah) the polemic, violent rhetoric has power and meaning. I don’t think anyone can claim that placing an individual in a crossfire is a benign statement – it is an act that suggests violence, that suggests a sense of desperation, and that justifies a vilification of the other. This is powerful speech.

I’m not saying Sarah Palin, and the many other right wing hyper-conservative folks are guilty of hate speech, whatever that may be. I am accusing them of being at the least disingenuous about their actions. I would love it if someone from camp Palin said something like, “we now recognize that the tone and tenor of our messages have had violent undertones and we recognize that we need to take responsibility for those messages. We implore our colleagues to take more time to consider the possible repercussions of our rhetoric and consider sending the same message with a more honest and life-affirming tone.”

Yet we all know that will never happen, to many big words, to much soul-searching, and to long to write on the side of a bus.

I Only Listen to Music Written and Performed by People With no Morals

Happy New Year. It is an arbitrary thing, but for whatever it is worth, happy new year.

Should we judge the author or the work itself?
I have recently downloaded Kanye West’s newest album “My beautiful Dark Twisted fantasy,” and have gotten a little bit of flack for it. I don’t have a lot of Kanye’s other stuff but have heard other tunes and have liked them. In addition I have heard from the music critic on Fresh Air, and the folks on All Songs Considered that this is a really good album. So, on a lark and with a gift card I purchased the song.

So far I have to say I enjoy it. I haven’t listened enough to give it a full critique, but I like it so far. Yet I have heard some people say they wouldn’t buy it because of who Kanye is. I don’t know everything he has done so I am not sure what exactly he represents or is being held accountable, so I am not one to judge or condemn him, but his music – I like it.

Here is the thing, just because a bastard writes it does that make it bad? Think of Die Walkure, or Lohengrin, or Das Rheingold. Are these operas bad because Wagner, an Anti-Semite, wrote them. Or what about all of the writings of Martin Luther? He also was fairly Anti-Semitic, so should we discount all of his writings. Augustine was a philander who begat a bastard child and did not help his mistress. Should we throw out the confessions? Martin Luther King Jr. had many affairs. Should we stop learning and listening to the “I have a Dream” speech? Beethoven originally supported Napoleon and intended to dedicate his third symphony to him. Should we stop singing Ode to Joy?

When you think about it there are a whole lot of creeps, low-lifes, bastards, and morally bankrupt people who seem to have contributed many good things to our society by way of the arts, sciences, politics, and more. In the U.S. many of our colleges, libraries, and foundations are funded by dollars earned on the back of works who were poorly paid, taken advantage of, and cheated. Yet we have not condemned the “robber barons” of our nation.

When someone perfect, without any sin, mar, failing, and fault offers something that is good and fulfilling (and not some boring “Christian” crap that holds little artistic value) then I will listen and endorse it. In the meantime, I will be aware of the author, but overall I will look to the merits of the work itself. Let Kanye play. Just not to loud, to many obscenities.

PostscriptJust in case you feel the need to be nerdy, I think this falls into the category of “author’s intent.” Feel free to ready Stanley Fish (early or late) or other Post-modern literary critics. Basically we can never know the author’s intent, all we have is the text, or song, or art itself and our reaction. That is the only thing that is real.

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.