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…
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
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.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, May 02, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 15, 2011
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
Hear the Podcast at itunes - 12enough
or link to the website: 12enough.libsyn.com
Thursday, April 14, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
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!
read and enjoy!
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
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!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
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.”
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.”
Sunday, February 20, 2011
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!
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!
Saturday, February 05, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
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…
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…
Friday, January 21, 2011
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
Monday, January 17, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)