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.