Sorry for the lateness of this post - the Chuseok (Korean) holiday just ended, and I am back to work. It is always encouraging to hear of the Amish consistency in being Christ-like when faced with situations of violence. This article from the AP shows yet again the seriousness with which the Amish take Christ's teachings of pacifism:
Dozens of Amish neighbours came out to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.
Charles Carl Roberts, 32, was buried in his wife's family plot behind a small Methodist church, a few kilometres from the one-room schoolhouse he stormed on Monday.
His wife, Marie, and their three small children looked on as Roberts was buried beside the pink, heart-shaped grave of the infant daughter whose death nine years ago apparently haunted him, said Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Colorado who attended the service.
About half of perhaps 75 mourners on hand were Amish.
"It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed," said Porter, who had come to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could. He said Marie Roberts was also touched.
"She was absolutely deeply moved, by just the love shown," Porter said.
The massacre sent out images to the world not only of the violence, but also of a little-known community that chooses to live an insular, agrarian way of life, shunning cars, electricity and other modern conveniences.
Leaders of the local Amish community were gathering yesterday afternoon at a firehouse to decide the future of the schoolhouse, and of the school year itself.
The prevailing wisdom suggested a new school would be built.
"There will definitely be a new school built, but not on that property," said Mike Hart, a spokesman for the Bart Fire Company in Georgetown.
Roberts stormed the West Nickel Mines Amish School on Monday, releasing the 15 boys and four adults before tying up and shooting the 10 girls. Roberts, who had come armed with a shotgun, a handgun and a stun gun, then killed himself.
Roberts' suicide notes and last calls with his wife reveal a man tormented by memories - as yet unsubstantiated - of molesting two young relatives 20 years ago. He said he was also angry at God for the November 14, 1997, death of the couple's first child, a girl named Elise Victoria who lived for just 20 minutes.
Hart is one of two non-Amish community members serving on a 10-member board that will decide how to distribute donations that have come in following the global news coverage. One stranger walked into the firehouse and dropped a $US100 bill ($134AUD) in the collection jar.
The condolences flowing into the Bart Post Office filled three large cartons today - two for the Amish children and one for the Roberts clan.
"(It's) envelopes, packages, food and a lot of cards," clerk Helena Salerno said.
More than $US500,000 ($671,907AUD) has been pledged, some of which is expected to cover medical costs for the five surviving girls. They remain in hospital and one is said to be in grave condition.
As the Sabbath Day approached, close friends expected to spend tomorrow paying visits to the victims' families.
The funerals for the five slain girls - Marian Fisher, 13; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Naomi Rose Ebersol, 7, and sisters Mary Liz Miller, 8, and Lena Miller, 7 - were held Thursday and Friday.
AP
Peace & Blessings.
Showing posts with label christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christ. Show all posts
10.08.2006
9.20.2006
(Re)Defining Sin
Ok - I can imagine that the title alone has already raised some red flags for some readers, and rightly so. It's one thing to talk about re-interpreting scripture, re-structuring the Church, etc. But don't mess with sin! I agree. Sin is a serious topic. Hang in a while, and I think you'll see that I treat it just as seriously as any evangelical would. My purpose here is not to reason away the seriousness of sin, but to do it more justice than is traditionally done.
One thing that all Christians should be able to agree on is the centrality of Christ and his teachings. In regards to spiritual law, Christ gave assent to two commands that sum up his view on how sin should be judged: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27). So often, Christians bring to the "sin discussion" various do's and dont's from throughout scripture. Christ simplified it for us. He gave us a love command to measure what is sinful and what is not. In Mark 12:31, Christ tells us there is no other command that supercedes these two love commands. So how should these words of Christ help us to redefine sin?
One thing that all Christians should be able to agree on is the centrality of Christ and his teachings. In regards to spiritual law, Christ gave assent to two commands that sum up his view on how sin should be judged: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27). So often, Christians bring to the "sin discussion" various do's and dont's from throughout scripture. Christ simplified it for us. He gave us a love command to measure what is sinful and what is not. In Mark 12:31, Christ tells us there is no other command that supercedes these two love commands. So how should these words of Christ help us to redefine sin?
- Sin is the absence of loving relationship with God and people. Sin is not first and foremost an act of commission, but an act of omission. Sin can be decided based on the lack of presence of love.
- Sin is failing to love God, neighbor, and self. Loving God is basically living in the presence of God, or having our being in His Spirit. Loving our neighbor, at least in Luke's gospel, is loving the other (i.e. those we would traditionally have nothing to do with). A lover of neighbors is one who has mercy on the outcast/other (v.37). Loving ourself is first self-identifying with the other, then loving the self. In other words, loving the self is recognizing that we have as much standing in the experience of grace as the person we consider most different from ourself, and that we love ourselves as much as we love the other person. Most Christians get the "love your neighbor as yourself" command backwards, because they start with only loving what is easy to love about themselves. Starting the neighborly love process from the foundation of the other stretches the command to a new, and more difficult level.
Sin, therefore, is not about a list of do's and dont's, but about acts of love toward God, others, and self. Therefore, rather than the person who follows the most rules, the most sanctified Christian is the one who loves the most.
Peace & Blessings.
9.11.2006
Beyond Gender
Most of us are aware, particularly our gay, lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters, of the church's track record on the issue of homosexuality and other trans-barrier sexualities. Instead of being welcomed into the family of God as vitally contributing participants, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons have traditionally been ostracized and vilified as perverts - those not capable of entering into the kingdom of God. The letters of Paul (assuming traditional authorship assignments) have been central in this program of vilification. Conservative readings of the opening chapters of Genesis, and legalistic readings of Leviticus, have also played a major role in the pogrom.
Most traditional biblical scholars and church leaders have proclaimed that Jesus was silent on the issue of trans-barrier sexualities. However, a new insight from Matthew 19:12 has recently come to the fore in biblical scholarship circles. For those not familiar with the passage in question, Jesus speaks of the acceptance of eunuchs, both natural and self-made, into the kingdom of heaven:
12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Because of cover-ups in interpretation stemming from traditional ideas of man/women gender roles, the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words have long been lost to the Church. In order to dilute the powerful message of Jesus in this passage and continue in the promulgation of traditional gender roles, biblical scholars have felt the need to view the eunuch as a non-sexual creature. After all, if sexual roles were divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pro-creation, what sexual role could a eunuch possibly have? The sexual options available to eunuchs are unthinkable to those entrenched in traditional heterosexist gender roles.
History, however, has a different story to tell concerning the sexualities of eunuchs. Any surface reading of ancient histories will show that eunuchs were not only servants of imperial courts, but enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as sexually active participants in a variety of roles with men and women. Because the phallus was of utmost importance during ancient times in conferring the status of manhood (i.e. personhood), eunuchs were despised as well for their state of castration. In other words, though they were politically powerful, they were moral and social outcasts. As is the case with all phobias, "eunuch-phobia" was a result of fear toward something not understood (or understood all too well). Men feared eunuchs because of the sexual and social power they exhibited in spite of their lack of phalli. Men of the time felt the need to vilify eunuchs because their power was derived from non-heterosexist gender roles: eunuchs performed the bottom role (i.e. being mounted) traditionally assigned to women and slaves.
It is in this context of ostracism that Jesus spoke acceptance to eunuchs, and to modern persons of trans-barrier sexualities. It is interesting to note that Jesus prefaced Matthew 19:12 with the words, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." Times have not changed so much. Certainly, everyone has not received this saying with the openness in which Jesus himself said it. Hence, the divisions in many denominations centering on controversies of sexuality. How much more beautiful the body of Christ would be if every person were accepted with the grace and love of Christ Himself.
Peace & Blessings.
Most traditional biblical scholars and church leaders have proclaimed that Jesus was silent on the issue of trans-barrier sexualities. However, a new insight from Matthew 19:12 has recently come to the fore in biblical scholarship circles. For those not familiar with the passage in question, Jesus speaks of the acceptance of eunuchs, both natural and self-made, into the kingdom of heaven:
12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Because of cover-ups in interpretation stemming from traditional ideas of man/women gender roles, the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words have long been lost to the Church. In order to dilute the powerful message of Jesus in this passage and continue in the promulgation of traditional gender roles, biblical scholars have felt the need to view the eunuch as a non-sexual creature. After all, if sexual roles were divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pro-creation, what sexual role could a eunuch possibly have? The sexual options available to eunuchs are unthinkable to those entrenched in traditional heterosexist gender roles.
History, however, has a different story to tell concerning the sexualities of eunuchs. Any surface reading of ancient histories will show that eunuchs were not only servants of imperial courts, but enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as sexually active participants in a variety of roles with men and women. Because the phallus was of utmost importance during ancient times in conferring the status of manhood (i.e. personhood), eunuchs were despised as well for their state of castration. In other words, though they were politically powerful, they were moral and social outcasts. As is the case with all phobias, "eunuch-phobia" was a result of fear toward something not understood (or understood all too well). Men feared eunuchs because of the sexual and social power they exhibited in spite of their lack of phalli. Men of the time felt the need to vilify eunuchs because their power was derived from non-heterosexist gender roles: eunuchs performed the bottom role (i.e. being mounted) traditionally assigned to women and slaves.
It is in this context of ostracism that Jesus spoke acceptance to eunuchs, and to modern persons of trans-barrier sexualities. It is interesting to note that Jesus prefaced Matthew 19:12 with the words, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." Times have not changed so much. Certainly, everyone has not received this saying with the openness in which Jesus himself said it. Hence, the divisions in many denominations centering on controversies of sexuality. How much more beautiful the body of Christ would be if every person were accepted with the grace and love of Christ Himself.
Peace & Blessings.
9.06.2006
Surface Christianity
I suppose dogmas have always been a part of the organizational church since the times of the Church Fathers. Though there is much controversy surrounding the formation and use of the following passage from Philippians, it is considered by many scholars to be one of the first hymns used in the early church, and may also have served as a type of creed:
6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
As a hymn, this is beautiful, and there is not much in it to ruffle the feathers of orthodox Christians. However, it is a product of Pauline theology, and it should be noted that Christ never promoted or suggested creeds of any kind. He usually taught in parables which were (and are) constantly subject to various interpretations. It seems that the teaching style of Christ, and most other teachers of his time, was designed to make people come to their own conclusions. I am not saying there was no point of truth in the teachings of Christ, but that the truth was multi-layered and relative to the hearer's progress on life's journey. Unlike Paul and other NT writers, Jesus rarely presented a statement of doctrinal truth as necessary belief. His whole ministry was designed to attract followers, not doctrinally correct theologians.
I think two portions of the gospels present this side of Jesus better than any others: Matthew 11:28-29, and John 21:15-19.
28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
Following Christ is the focus of the gospel. Some of his disciples did not really know who Jesus was. Matthew 16 tells the story of Jesus asking his followers who they thought he was. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, and some said Jeremiah. Peter eventually says that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, but does not scold the others for their answers. Though this passage is often used by preachers to proclaim the divinity of Christ (and I have no argument with that), a deeper point is that Jesus accepted followers who were not aware of his divinity.
So what about creeds and dogmas? What purpose do they really serve in light of Jesus' acceptance of followers not aware of his divinity? From a human standpoint, I think dogmas serve to massage the ego, to place certain people within a community, and to place others outside the community. It's really all about a reversion to law vs. grace. People with correct answers are in; people who are passionate disciples but don't believe the dogmas are out. This may be a Pauline way of doing things, but it certainly isn't a Jesus was of doing things. [Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but I am a disciple of Christ]
Surface Christianity depends too much on right belief, and too little on right action. It seems that Jesus was more concerned with conversion as process (i.e. following him) than conversion as belief. When Christianity becomes a set of beliefs, a series of creeds, it diminishes into something Christ never intended. He desires zealous followers who love him, no matter what idenity they assign to him. No doubt, there are myriad more zealous "Christians" who've never heard the name of Christ, than those who claim the name "Christian" and have all the correct answers.
Peace & Blessings.
6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
As a hymn, this is beautiful, and there is not much in it to ruffle the feathers of orthodox Christians. However, it is a product of Pauline theology, and it should be noted that Christ never promoted or suggested creeds of any kind. He usually taught in parables which were (and are) constantly subject to various interpretations. It seems that the teaching style of Christ, and most other teachers of his time, was designed to make people come to their own conclusions. I am not saying there was no point of truth in the teachings of Christ, but that the truth was multi-layered and relative to the hearer's progress on life's journey. Unlike Paul and other NT writers, Jesus rarely presented a statement of doctrinal truth as necessary belief. His whole ministry was designed to attract followers, not doctrinally correct theologians.
I think two portions of the gospels present this side of Jesus better than any others: Matthew 11:28-29, and John 21:15-19.
28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
Following Christ is the focus of the gospel. Some of his disciples did not really know who Jesus was. Matthew 16 tells the story of Jesus asking his followers who they thought he was. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, and some said Jeremiah. Peter eventually says that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, but does not scold the others for their answers. Though this passage is often used by preachers to proclaim the divinity of Christ (and I have no argument with that), a deeper point is that Jesus accepted followers who were not aware of his divinity.
So what about creeds and dogmas? What purpose do they really serve in light of Jesus' acceptance of followers not aware of his divinity? From a human standpoint, I think dogmas serve to massage the ego, to place certain people within a community, and to place others outside the community. It's really all about a reversion to law vs. grace. People with correct answers are in; people who are passionate disciples but don't believe the dogmas are out. This may be a Pauline way of doing things, but it certainly isn't a Jesus was of doing things. [Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but I am a disciple of Christ]
Surface Christianity depends too much on right belief, and too little on right action. It seems that Jesus was more concerned with conversion as process (i.e. following him) than conversion as belief. When Christianity becomes a set of beliefs, a series of creeds, it diminishes into something Christ never intended. He desires zealous followers who love him, no matter what idenity they assign to him. No doubt, there are myriad more zealous "Christians" who've never heard the name of Christ, than those who claim the name "Christian" and have all the correct answers.
Peace & Blessings.
8.31.2006
Wrestling With God
I can see it now. The lights dim, people in their pews (chairs, whatever) waiting with bated breath for the ultimate smackdown. The mic descends slowly from the ceiling overhead the ring, a minister wearing black spandex waiting to make his announcement. D-Generation X blares over the multiple Panaray MB-4 modular bass loudspeakers strategically located around the periphery of the sanctuary. Mic now in hand, the ministers yells, "Let's get ready to rumble", drawing out "rumble" for maximum effect. Ah, I can only imagine.....
What if we approached God, more often than not, with an attitude of confrontation rather than submissiveness? What if we did this not just within the Community meeting, but also individually? I don't know about you, but sometimes I just get plain lethargic in worship services and in my personal journey. I am so used to saying "OK, God, have it your way", rather than "I don't think so. Let's go outside." I am not suggesting an attitude of defiance; rather, I am bemoaning our inability to question in order to discover. Take a look at the story of Jacob's wrestling match with God in Genesis 32: 22-32.
22The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." 28Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." 29Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. 30So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." 31The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.
What has happened to this ancient tradition of fighting with God? It's not an avant-garde suggestion. All the prophets did it, and the wisdom books of the Bible are filled with questions, not answers. Why have we become so laissez-faire when it comes to following God? Jacob wrestled with God, breaking his leg in the process, and threatened God with continued fighting if he did not receive a blessing. How much more rich our journeys would be if would just learn to be comfortable with "fighting" God! It'd probably make His life a lot more interesting too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
