2.01.2007
1.13.2007
12.07.2006
12.06.2006
12.05.2006
11.22.2006
11.11.2006
11.05.2006
Another One Bites the Dust
I don't really know how to feel in hearing the news of Pastor Ted Haggard's previous secret of crystal meth use and gay sex (I know, he only admits to getting a "massage"). Part of me wants to shout for joy, and part of me hurts for him and his family. As much as I think Freud to be wacko, he actually hit the nail on the head when speaking of deep "closet cases" such as Haggard. The good pastor is a classic case of reaction formation, lashing out at that characteristic that most deeply defines himself.
I hurt for his family, not because Haggard is gay, but because of the process of healing they are all going to have to go through now. I know if the process is done right, healing will occur. Healing, in this case, means his wife moves on in a healthy way, and Haggard discovers how to live as a healthy gay man. I want to shout for joy because this is another case of the deep hypocrisy in moral code-based spirituality. I pray that something goods comes of it.
Peace & Blessings.
I hurt for his family, not because Haggard is gay, but because of the process of healing they are all going to have to go through now. I know if the process is done right, healing will occur. Healing, in this case, means his wife moves on in a healthy way, and Haggard discovers how to live as a healthy gay man. I want to shout for joy because this is another case of the deep hypocrisy in moral code-based spirituality. I pray that something goods comes of it.
Peace & Blessings.
10.29.2006
10.19.2006
An Episcopalian Pantheistic Quaker
Sorry I haven't been able to post with the regularity of last month. This month's teaching schedule has been busy, and I'm trying to finish my PhD dissertation. But, my love affair with Blogger continues....
I think I've said somewhere before that I am addicted to labels, despite my postmodern midset. I suppose it's a leftover trait from my fundamentalist, evanglical days. I've been thinking lately about what label to apply to myself. I'm sure some readers of this blog would be more than happy to jump in with "heretic" or "pagan", and they might not be too far off the mark~
There are three traditions that really appeal to me, though traditionally they have been at some odds: Episcopalianism, Pantheism, and Quakerism. God, I love to talk about -isms!
Though I have only been to a handful of Episcopalian worship services, my immediate reaction to the pomp - the sights and smells of worship - was one of sheer spiritual ecstacy. In worshiping a God as grand as He/She is, I cannot fathom there being too much pagentry in the process. The stained glass, the incense, the garments, the community of it all! Episcopalian worship takes my breath away, and leaves my feeling as if I have truly encountered the faceless, mysterious God.
Pantheism, though often at odds with Christian doctrine, has found a deep place in my heart as well. My recent subscription to ecopsychology (the topic of my dissertation) has even furthered that place. It seems evident to me that everything is somehow interconnected, and that the smallest action in one place effects other things elsewhere. I have always been a monist as well, which presented problems when I felt the need to belive in the Trinity. I see the earth as the body of God. Most characteristics that has traditionally been assigned to God can also be assigned to the earth & the universe (i.e. omnipresence, omnipotence, creativity, etc). Nature has been a sanctuary to me more times than I can remember, producing feelings of awe, inadequacy, and love simultaneously.
Modern Quakerism probably has more in common with pantheism than with Episcopalianism. Quakers believe in three main things that resonate with my S(s)pirit: the Inner Light in each individual, the value of listening, and a commitment to pacifism. Whereas I relish the ornate worship of the Episcopal church, I also find deep meaning simply in the practice of being still and listening to the Spirit within. Each person, as part of creation and a part of God, has the ability to hear the voice of God within. The gospel of John tells us that Light entered the world, and this Light is the Light of men. Quakers also take the teachings of Jesus seriously about loving neighbor as self, the neighbors being our fellow human beings.
So, I'm an EPQ, at least for the time being. I treasure parts of each of these traditions, and find additional meaning outside of these traditions. The journey continues....
Peace & Blessings.
I think I've said somewhere before that I am addicted to labels, despite my postmodern midset. I suppose it's a leftover trait from my fundamentalist, evanglical days. I've been thinking lately about what label to apply to myself. I'm sure some readers of this blog would be more than happy to jump in with "heretic" or "pagan", and they might not be too far off the mark~
There are three traditions that really appeal to me, though traditionally they have been at some odds: Episcopalianism, Pantheism, and Quakerism. God, I love to talk about -isms!
Though I have only been to a handful of Episcopalian worship services, my immediate reaction to the pomp - the sights and smells of worship - was one of sheer spiritual ecstacy. In worshiping a God as grand as He/She is, I cannot fathom there being too much pagentry in the process. The stained glass, the incense, the garments, the community of it all! Episcopalian worship takes my breath away, and leaves my feeling as if I have truly encountered the faceless, mysterious God.
Pantheism, though often at odds with Christian doctrine, has found a deep place in my heart as well. My recent subscription to ecopsychology (the topic of my dissertation) has even furthered that place. It seems evident to me that everything is somehow interconnected, and that the smallest action in one place effects other things elsewhere. I have always been a monist as well, which presented problems when I felt the need to belive in the Trinity. I see the earth as the body of God. Most characteristics that has traditionally been assigned to God can also be assigned to the earth & the universe (i.e. omnipresence, omnipotence, creativity, etc). Nature has been a sanctuary to me more times than I can remember, producing feelings of awe, inadequacy, and love simultaneously.
Modern Quakerism probably has more in common with pantheism than with Episcopalianism. Quakers believe in three main things that resonate with my S(s)pirit: the Inner Light in each individual, the value of listening, and a commitment to pacifism. Whereas I relish the ornate worship of the Episcopal church, I also find deep meaning simply in the practice of being still and listening to the Spirit within. Each person, as part of creation and a part of God, has the ability to hear the voice of God within. The gospel of John tells us that Light entered the world, and this Light is the Light of men. Quakers also take the teachings of Jesus seriously about loving neighbor as self, the neighbors being our fellow human beings.
So, I'm an EPQ, at least for the time being. I treasure parts of each of these traditions, and find additional meaning outside of these traditions. The journey continues....
Peace & Blessings.
10.10.2006
A Flexible Relationship to the Truth
*The following additions come from a discussion I am having on a message board concerning the reliability of scripture in achieving absolute truth:
The purpose of this reponse is not to vilify faith, but actually to strengthen it. Truth is not so easily obtained, and the more difficult truth is to obtain, the more faith is required. The criticism I have of the biblical writers is not a criticism of their faith or belief, but a simple acknowledgement that truth is just as elusive within Scripture as it is within the secular world.
The term redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen in his work, Mark the Evangelist, pg. 21. This type of textual criticism is useful during investigations of all types of historical literature, and is not only applied to the Bible. In What is Redaction Criticism, pg. 1, Perrin defines the practice of redaction criticism as the discovery of "the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangment, editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." Conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars all use redaction criticism to some extent in addressing biblical interpretation.
Marxen explains that there are three "settings in life" to consider when interpreting each of the gospels. The first setting is the authentic tradition deriving from the life of Christ; the second is the use to which the early Christian community put said tradition; and the third is the environmental situation of the author(s) of the gospel since they are not only collectors, but also writers. Unless one believes that God Himself wrote the words in stone, then all of this makes sense. Scholars do the same analysis with any historical document of study.
Now, on to some examples of biblical redaction. I should start by saying that just because material is redacted does not automatically mean you should not believe it - it simply means you should know it is redacted, and not part of the original story. Personally, I have faith in many redacted teachings. Of course, the most major doctrine in all of traditional Christendom is the divinity of Christ. As everyone knows, before movable type printing, volumes were copied by hand. In the case of Scripture, many thousands of scribes laboriously hand-copied sections of the Bible. At times, these copyists were tired; at times they were in a hurry; at times they were theologically motivated to make changes. Hence, "errors" entered into the biblical manuscripts, now accounting for tens of thousands of variations in readings, some minor, some not-so-minor.
One of the not-so-minor variations is found in the opening line of Mark's gospel, which reads, "This is the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." The tiny, yet theologically powerful, "Son of God" is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is a later scribal addition to bring Mark into line with later developments in Christology, and the other gospels (which almost all scholars acknowledge were written after Mark). What makes "the Son of God" so strange in the context of Mark's gospel is that, throughout the rest of his gospel, Mark takes the prophet Daniel's lead in referring to Christ as the "Son of Man(kind)."
Another vital Christian doctrine is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Along with a [now heretical] version of Christ's divinity, I also believe in the traditional version of Christ's resurrection. But again, Mark gives us redactionary issues on the resurrection. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the discovery of the empty tomb in 16:8. Later manuscripts add verses 9-20, which include post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and even some assumed words of Christ himself in verses 15-18. Of course, if the reader of Mark's gospel is already a committed believer in the resurrected Christ, then he will just fly through verses 9-20 like they are the most natural words in the world. However, if an unbeliever were to stop at verse 8, the empty tomb, then there are myriad explanations for the emptiness of the grave. The later verses were added to confirm an evolving belief in a resurrected Christ. Interestingly enough, the supposed words of Christ in verses 15-18 have led to a variety of fundamentalist Christianity in Appalachia known as "snake-handling." Scores of believers have died for words that most likely were never spoken by Jesus.
A third important doctrine of Christianity, and one which I do not personally hold, is the belief in the Trinity. This is actually one of the more interesting and obvious redactionary biblical doctrines. In Matthew 28:19, the writer states, "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is not included in early manuscripts, and the Church did not officially assent to the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, most of the churches having a doctrine of "the holy two" previous to this (see the Council at Nice). One would think that if pro-Trinity scriptures were in the text from the beginning, it would not have taken Church leaders four centuries to make a decision on the issue. Another example of trinitarian interpolation is found in 1 John 5:8, which reads, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is an extremely late addition as well, and is not found in early manuscripts. The 1 John passage has actually been removed in most modern translations, but is still included in some traditional translations.
Though the next two examples are not necessarily doctrinal, they are very interesting to me in the sense that one shows how the Matthean author(s) and redactors struggled with their contemporary religious environment (i.e. the debate concerning allowing Gentiles into the Christian movement), and the second gives an example of an obvious historical inconsistency. The redactors were not always on the ball.
In much of Matthew's gospel, gentiles are referred to as dogs, or they are normally ignored. However, portions of Matthew, such as the parable of the Roman centurion, exhibit gentile healings. Other portions of Matthew claim that gentiles from east and west will sit down together in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Jewish people will be thrown out. Most scholars believe that the pro-gentile material is original material, but that anti-gentile additions were added later when the Jewish Christian community received the gospel. Old traditions die hard I suppose.
There are two versions of what happened to Judas after he supposedly betrayed Christ: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:16-18. The Matthew version tells us that Judas, full of guilt, threw his thirty pieces of silver on the floor and immediately went to hang himself. The Acts version (traditionally attributed to Luke) tells us that Judas purchased some land with the money, and one day while walking through his fields, he tripped and fell, his guts spilling out on the ground. The stories could not be more different.
Peace & Blessings.
The purpose of this reponse is not to vilify faith, but actually to strengthen it. Truth is not so easily obtained, and the more difficult truth is to obtain, the more faith is required. The criticism I have of the biblical writers is not a criticism of their faith or belief, but a simple acknowledgement that truth is just as elusive within Scripture as it is within the secular world.
The term redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen in his work, Mark the Evangelist, pg. 21. This type of textual criticism is useful during investigations of all types of historical literature, and is not only applied to the Bible. In What is Redaction Criticism, pg. 1, Perrin defines the practice of redaction criticism as the discovery of "the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangment, editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." Conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars all use redaction criticism to some extent in addressing biblical interpretation.
Marxen explains that there are three "settings in life" to consider when interpreting each of the gospels. The first setting is the authentic tradition deriving from the life of Christ; the second is the use to which the early Christian community put said tradition; and the third is the environmental situation of the author(s) of the gospel since they are not only collectors, but also writers. Unless one believes that God Himself wrote the words in stone, then all of this makes sense. Scholars do the same analysis with any historical document of study.
Now, on to some examples of biblical redaction. I should start by saying that just because material is redacted does not automatically mean you should not believe it - it simply means you should know it is redacted, and not part of the original story. Personally, I have faith in many redacted teachings. Of course, the most major doctrine in all of traditional Christendom is the divinity of Christ. As everyone knows, before movable type printing, volumes were copied by hand. In the case of Scripture, many thousands of scribes laboriously hand-copied sections of the Bible. At times, these copyists were tired; at times they were in a hurry; at times they were theologically motivated to make changes. Hence, "errors" entered into the biblical manuscripts, now accounting for tens of thousands of variations in readings, some minor, some not-so-minor.
One of the not-so-minor variations is found in the opening line of Mark's gospel, which reads, "This is the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." The tiny, yet theologically powerful, "Son of God" is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is a later scribal addition to bring Mark into line with later developments in Christology, and the other gospels (which almost all scholars acknowledge were written after Mark). What makes "the Son of God" so strange in the context of Mark's gospel is that, throughout the rest of his gospel, Mark takes the prophet Daniel's lead in referring to Christ as the "Son of Man(kind)."
Another vital Christian doctrine is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Along with a [now heretical] version of Christ's divinity, I also believe in the traditional version of Christ's resurrection. But again, Mark gives us redactionary issues on the resurrection. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the discovery of the empty tomb in 16:8. Later manuscripts add verses 9-20, which include post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and even some assumed words of Christ himself in verses 15-18. Of course, if the reader of Mark's gospel is already a committed believer in the resurrected Christ, then he will just fly through verses 9-20 like they are the most natural words in the world. However, if an unbeliever were to stop at verse 8, the empty tomb, then there are myriad explanations for the emptiness of the grave. The later verses were added to confirm an evolving belief in a resurrected Christ. Interestingly enough, the supposed words of Christ in verses 15-18 have led to a variety of fundamentalist Christianity in Appalachia known as "snake-handling." Scores of believers have died for words that most likely were never spoken by Jesus.
A third important doctrine of Christianity, and one which I do not personally hold, is the belief in the Trinity. This is actually one of the more interesting and obvious redactionary biblical doctrines. In Matthew 28:19, the writer states, "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is not included in early manuscripts, and the Church did not officially assent to the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, most of the churches having a doctrine of "the holy two" previous to this (see the Council at Nice). One would think that if pro-Trinity scriptures were in the text from the beginning, it would not have taken Church leaders four centuries to make a decision on the issue. Another example of trinitarian interpolation is found in 1 John 5:8, which reads, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is an extremely late addition as well, and is not found in early manuscripts. The 1 John passage has actually been removed in most modern translations, but is still included in some traditional translations.
Though the next two examples are not necessarily doctrinal, they are very interesting to me in the sense that one shows how the Matthean author(s) and redactors struggled with their contemporary religious environment (i.e. the debate concerning allowing Gentiles into the Christian movement), and the second gives an example of an obvious historical inconsistency. The redactors were not always on the ball.
In much of Matthew's gospel, gentiles are referred to as dogs, or they are normally ignored. However, portions of Matthew, such as the parable of the Roman centurion, exhibit gentile healings. Other portions of Matthew claim that gentiles from east and west will sit down together in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Jewish people will be thrown out. Most scholars believe that the pro-gentile material is original material, but that anti-gentile additions were added later when the Jewish Christian community received the gospel. Old traditions die hard I suppose.
There are two versions of what happened to Judas after he supposedly betrayed Christ: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:16-18. The Matthew version tells us that Judas, full of guilt, threw his thirty pieces of silver on the floor and immediately went to hang himself. The Acts version (traditionally attributed to Luke) tells us that Judas purchased some land with the money, and one day while walking through his fields, he tripped and fell, his guts spilling out on the ground. The stories could not be more different.
Peace & Blessings.
10.08.2006
Consistently Christ-like
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.
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.
9.27.2006
My partner, Kihwan, and I went to a Jazz Festival in Jarasum, Korea this past weekend. We had some time to spare on Sunday morning, so we went to some gardens to eat lunch and take some pictures. These are some of the pictures that Kihwan took - I think he's a wonderful photographer, but perhaps I am biased:)
Peace & Blessings.
9.24.2006
9.22.2006
Thomas' Role Model
Luke 7
18 John's disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' " 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me."
This passage is from Luke 7, after Jesus had been performing many miracles and even claiming the Sonship of God. In Luke 3:22, a voice from heaven (presumably God's) calls Jesus his Son outright. The first chapter of John's gospel shows John giving assent to Jesus' divinity. Yet, in chapter 7, we encounter John's crisis of faith, going so far as to question the messiahship of Jesus. John had seen or heard of the miracles, and most likely had even heard the voice of God during Jesus' baptism. So why did John doubt the messiahship of Jesus?
I think a major part of understanding John's question is to recognize the circumstances John was in. He sent his disciples to ask Jesus this question while he was in a prison cell. Also, John was asking this question, not in spite of Jesus' miracles, but because of them. If Jesus was powerful enough to perform all those healings, why was He not powerful enough to rescue John from prison?
Jesus did not seem too upset by the question. In fact, he blesses those who follow God in spite of His ministry: "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me." In essence, Jesus is saying, "Yes, I show the way to God for some, but I may make it harder for others." This is the paradox of Christ's life. Depending on where we are in life, and what circumstances we are undergoing, Jesus either makes it easier or more difficult for us to connect to God. John didn't have a problem with Jesus’ messiahship while he was preaching in the desert; in fact, he welcomed it. But when he found himself in prison, the way wasn't so easy, and doubts naturally came to the surface.
There are so many things I love about this story (I know, it's a strange story to love), a few being:
John, whether asking from frustration or a real desire to discern truth, was bold enough to ask THE question. This was not the equivalent of an inerrancy debate - this was what Truth depended on. Is Jesus really God? If that discussion is a biblical precedent, then I think we can handle anything in the emerging church conversation.
Jesus didn't answer the question. He treasured John's ability to decide by the Spirit's leading. Jesus presented His track record, and gave John the freedom to decide for himself.
Jesus recognized the frustration and pain of John, and blessed (blesses) those who ask tough questions. Sometimes, I think Christians are afraid to diminish God's honor or offend His sensibilities by asking point blank questions. At least in this story, Jesus not only recognizes John's right to ask the question, but his courage to get to the point.
Peace & Blessings.
9.20.2006
The Barbarian Way (Erwin McManus)
I just pray that I can eventually hear God's voice so clearly, and share it so eloquently, as does Erwin McManus. Let this sermon "barbarize" you.
Peace & Blessings.
powered by ODEO
Peace & Blessings.
powered by ODEO
The Gay Christian Forum
Not sure what's up with the music at the beginning (I hate patriotic songs), but the panel discussion is a blessing. Enjoy!
powered by ODEO
powered by ODEO
(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.
9.19.2006
Called to Inclusiveness
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Acts 10: 9-16
This wonderful story of inclusion has been interpretatively reduced as an inclusion of Gentiles into the family God. This, of course, is a comfortable interpretation because most believers are Gentiles. Few people, however, go beyond their own characteristics (i.e. being Gentile, being straight, being doctrinally correct, etc.) when it comes to inclusion in the Church. This vision of Peter's prompts me to ask some questions of myself, which, in answering, lead to fuller inclusion within the Community of God:
Q: What can God NOT make clean?
A: Nothing.
Thank God we are not the gatekeepers. The visible fellowship of believers would be so tiny if we had control of who's in and who's out. The grace of God is sovereign, and whoever (that a powerful word) comes to Him is accepted by Him. Human standards of "cleanliness" notwithstanding, God arms are open wide enough for full inclusion of all who come to Him.
Q: How do the animals shown by God in the vision equate to humanity?
A: Levitical laws of purity are done away with.
Legalists love to quote the verse, "I (Christ) did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." For some reason, they think this quote of Christ re-inforces a system of rules and regulations within the Church. Whether the law is destroyed or fulfilled, the point is that it doesn't exist anymore. By encouraging Peter to eat formerly unclean animals, God is giving the Church a new spirit of openness and acceptance. In effect, God is saying He accepts more people in His family than we'd ever consider accepting into ours.
Q: Why did Peter have to be told three times to accept the vision?
A: Conversation is everything to God.
The more I read scripture, the more I see how much God values conversation with His creatures. Even though Peter's exclusivism initially bothered me, it also taught me something: God withdrew the vision before Peter gave agreement. Peter was left to formulate his own decision on the matter of inclusion, and ultimately came over to God's side of the argument. This wasn't a necessary conclusion though. Peter just as well could have disagreed and continued being exclusive. God values freedom and conversation over acceptance and rote obedience.
Peace & Blessings.
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Acts 10: 9-16
This wonderful story of inclusion has been interpretatively reduced as an inclusion of Gentiles into the family God. This, of course, is a comfortable interpretation because most believers are Gentiles. Few people, however, go beyond their own characteristics (i.e. being Gentile, being straight, being doctrinally correct, etc.) when it comes to inclusion in the Church. This vision of Peter's prompts me to ask some questions of myself, which, in answering, lead to fuller inclusion within the Community of God:
Q: What can God NOT make clean?
A: Nothing.
Thank God we are not the gatekeepers. The visible fellowship of believers would be so tiny if we had control of who's in and who's out. The grace of God is sovereign, and whoever (that a powerful word) comes to Him is accepted by Him. Human standards of "cleanliness" notwithstanding, God arms are open wide enough for full inclusion of all who come to Him.
Q: How do the animals shown by God in the vision equate to humanity?
A: Levitical laws of purity are done away with.
Legalists love to quote the verse, "I (Christ) did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." For some reason, they think this quote of Christ re-inforces a system of rules and regulations within the Church. Whether the law is destroyed or fulfilled, the point is that it doesn't exist anymore. By encouraging Peter to eat formerly unclean animals, God is giving the Church a new spirit of openness and acceptance. In effect, God is saying He accepts more people in His family than we'd ever consider accepting into ours.
Q: Why did Peter have to be told three times to accept the vision?
A: Conversation is everything to God.
The more I read scripture, the more I see how much God values conversation with His creatures. Even though Peter's exclusivism initially bothered me, it also taught me something: God withdrew the vision before Peter gave agreement. Peter was left to formulate his own decision on the matter of inclusion, and ultimately came over to God's side of the argument. This wasn't a necessary conclusion though. Peter just as well could have disagreed and continued being exclusive. God values freedom and conversation over acceptance and rote obedience.
Peace & Blessings.
Approaching the Bible as a Conversation
With all the examples of great fathers and mothers of the faith conversing, arguing, and fighting with God, I've always thought it strange that some people approach scripture as if God is finished speaking. What kind of relationship is so one-sided that for nearly two thousand years, only one side gets to speak, and the other must simply listen? The Bible is littered with examples of faithful people in real conversation with God. However, most modern Christians only address God in prayer, and then mostly with petitions.
If the Bible is a significant part of God's word to us, then why shouldn't we address it as we would a real conversation with any other of our friends? In real conversations, one participant doesn't just sit back and agree with everything being said. There are tensions and resolutions, and some questions are simply left unanswered. I know many people are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, but I cannot think of any real relationship in my life in which there is not a certain amount of ambiguity.
Apart from prayer, I see the Bible as God's biggest offering of conversation to us as His followers. It is so plain to me that scripture is simply a means to an end, that being a walk with God. Of course, I am not suggesting a biblical buffet, where each person just picks and chooses what they want to accept. This is an all-too-typical straw man argument against those who are really seeking to find truth through conversation. In fact, I believe conversing with the biblical witnesses treats scripture more highly than simply claming the Bible as petrified truth. It is so refreshing to start reading passages of scripture knowing that God wants a response, not just a nod in the affirmative.
Peace & Blessings.
If the Bible is a significant part of God's word to us, then why shouldn't we address it as we would a real conversation with any other of our friends? In real conversations, one participant doesn't just sit back and agree with everything being said. There are tensions and resolutions, and some questions are simply left unanswered. I know many people are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, but I cannot think of any real relationship in my life in which there is not a certain amount of ambiguity.
Apart from prayer, I see the Bible as God's biggest offering of conversation to us as His followers. It is so plain to me that scripture is simply a means to an end, that being a walk with God. Of course, I am not suggesting a biblical buffet, where each person just picks and chooses what they want to accept. This is an all-too-typical straw man argument against those who are really seeking to find truth through conversation. In fact, I believe conversing with the biblical witnesses treats scripture more highly than simply claming the Bible as petrified truth. It is so refreshing to start reading passages of scripture knowing that God wants a response, not just a nod in the affirmative.
Peace & Blessings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
