Here's the Thing

A Thought

2012-01-30T08:37:00.001-06:00

Mark9:14-29tells the story of a man and his deaf-mute son who had been so afflicted sincebirth. Jesus’ disciples were unable to cast out this demon, but Jesustold the boy’s father that through faith, “all things are possible to himwho believes” (vs 23). The father’s prayers asks Jesus to “helpmy unbelief” (vs 24). Jesus finally commanded the spirit to leave theboy’s body, and so it was done. Finally Jesus’ disciples asked Him why itwas they could not cast out that demon. Jesus answered them, “Thiskind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting” (vs 29).

Weoften forget that what is asked of us takes much more than a desire to seesomething happen; there must be resolve to see it through. Gifts from aboveare given to each of us according to the Lord’s own purposes, so it stands toreason that we should not expect to be so richly endowed unless we can show theLord we can be trusted with such remarkable gifts – because with such giftscome also enormous responsibility. It is a lot like what we do with ourchildren or employees; before we trust them with something really big, theyhave to show us they can be trusted. They must earn that trust. Andit will take much more than a simple word or a promise. So it is with ourheavenly Father.

Thisis not about being or getting “saved”. It is about “sanctification”, thepursuit of holiness; spiritual perfection. It is not a one-time shot; itis a lifelong resolve and commitment to something much greater than personalhappiness or fulfillment. It is entirely about service to the Lord andHis Church. It is about building up the kingdom of Heaven, not “makingthe most of what we have while we’re here”. It is about learning toreorient our “desire” to match the will of our Lord, learning to live and loveas Jesus lived and loved while on this earth, testified to in His mighty worksand perfected in His willingness to lay down His life for His beloved Church.

Thiswill only be accomplished, however, by “nothing but prayer and fasting”;not one or the other as our time time allows. So we ask ourselves: whatexactly are we committed to?

Blessings,

Michael

Discerning a Prophet

2012-01-29T08:30:00.001-06:00

Deuteronomy 18:15-20

Mark 1:21-28

Should you trust me? As the pastor of a church and a preacher, Ihave roles to fill; often more than one role depending on circumstance andneed. Some roles I think I do very wellin; others, well, I just do the best I can - just as you do. What should be clear in all circumstances,however, is that in every role and under every circumstance, I as a human being(like all of you!) am fallible; which is to say, I am quite capable of beingwro ... *ahem* ... wrrrrrrrooooo ... well, you know.

Some consider me to be a little too"legalistic" - and to an extent I probably am because I am alsosomewhat of a traditionalist and a believer in "rules" and consistentstandards instead of chaos! I have adeep and abiding appreciation for traditions of the past; and I can appreciaterules that have value toward good order. Rules can sometimes be cumbersome, I agree, but the ones who don't likerules are usually those who prefer to set and live by their very own rules. When we participate in the life of the HolyChurch, we celebrate the past in the joyful anticipation of what is to come;and rules help a body to coalesce as a single entity. Both are good and both serve useful purposes,but it is also important to remember that both are means to an end and not theends themselves.

I know you can trust me to do my verybest, but this is not nearly as important as you believing you can trust me -but never blindly especially when it comes to the Word of the Lord! I hope you appreciate that when I bring theWord to you, I bring you what I earnestly believe to be a genuine and honestreflection of what is already written, even as I often try to "push theenvelope". I trust you will readand engage scripture for yourselves so you can measure what I offer in the truespirit of the Word. If you do not readand study Scripture for yourselves, however, you can only - at best - take whatI say with a grain of salt because you have nothing authoritative against whichto measure. And no, your opinionindependent of scripture is not "authoritative". Nor is mine.

It ultimately boils down to appropriateauthority, and no preacher, pastor, prophet, or priest has authority untohimself or herself even as we are endowed with certain authority relative tothe offices we serve. This is not tosuggest you are required on any level to agree with me - or with any preacher,for that matter. Always agreeing with what is said by a preacher, priest, orprophet is not the point of preachingOR prophesying. It is about engagement. It is about listening with an open mind andconsidering what is before us within an appropriate context. It is about "testing the spirit" [ofa speaker] as expressed by 1 John 4: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit..." They are to be testednot according to what you or I THINK or what you or I would LIKE to hear butaccording to what you and I KNOW from Scripture.

Consider these words from the prophetJeremiah (11:1-3); "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 'Hear thewords of this covenant, and speak to the people ... and say to them, 'Thus saysthe Lord God of Israel: Cursed is the one who does not obey the words of thiscovenant.'" Or considerthese rather ominous words from Christ Himself (Mt 6:1-15): "Ifyou forgive others their trespasses (debt, sin), your heavenly Father will alsoforgive you. But if you do not forgive otherstheir trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." And I have to tell you these words flyin the face of "pop" Christianity.

Both are a prophetic voice; and eventhough both seem "predictive" of what may to come to pass,neither is a definitive look into the future. Each message requires a response, and each response will determine whatwill be ahead. So prophesy is notexclusively about seeing blindly into the future and predicting a particularoutcome regardless of present circumstances. A prophetic voice must necessarily reach into the past (for instance, tothe Law of Moses which contains the terms of the "covenant" Jeremiahspeaks of), use that past to speak to the present circumstance, and call thepeople of the Lord forward and into hopefully a positive response and out of a stateof complacency.

Consider the Lord's word to the prophetEzekiel (3:17-19, 21): "Son of man, I have made you a watchmanfor the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give themwarning from Me. When I say to thewicked, 'You shall surely die', and you give him no warning nor speak to warnthe wicked from his wicked way to save his life, that same wicked man shall diein his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked and he does notturn from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity;but you have delivered your soul ... Nevertheless if you warn the righteous manthat the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely livebecause he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul."

For those who do not bother with theBible and / or do not feel a need to, there is little one can say because theyhave no basis upon which to engage discussion and spiritual consideration. Biblical principles and secular social ideasmix like oil and water, and many are being led astray because they are formingan opinion based only on observation and what just "feelsright". It doesn't mean they areautomatically "wrong", of course, but it is not unlike making afinancial or investment decision without reading all available information sothat an informed decision can be made. We would not do such a thing with our money - SO - why on earth would webe so careless with our immortal souls??

There have been prophets, and there willbe prophets until Kingdom comes. Mosesreminded the people of Israel that there will be a prophet "like him"who will be the important voice to keep Israel moving in the right direction,and the judgment will be fierce against those who refuse to listen to thatprophet - AND - the judgment will be fierce against those prophets who remainsilent in the face of evil or who choose a more "free lance" approachto preaching; going it alone and just making something up for less-than-holyobjectives that may appeal to the masses, make people feel good about themselves,and may sell a lot of t-shirts and bumper stickers, but it will still leave theLord's people substantially hungry, just as it is written in Ezekiel (34:2a, 3): "Woe to the shepherds ofIsrael who feed themselves ... you eat the fat and clothe yourselves with thewool; you slaughter the fatlings [for yourselves],but you do not feed theflock."

A thorough reading and study ofScripture will clearly indicate that the Lord is fiercely protective of Hispeople, but living in willful ignorance of His will, His Laws, and His statutesmeans we will inevitably mislead others and will not even know to correct themwhen they go astray. I have longmaintained that prayer is the only way we can discern the will of our HolyFather, but such prayer must be carefully weighed in accordance with what isalready written for our appropriate use, as we are instructed in 1 Timothy 3. But we cannot use something about which we haveno knowledge.

But what of this "newteaching" the people in the synagogue are marveling about (Mark 1:27)? What are they hearing that they've not heardbefore? Well, we don't really know. We can see the encounter Jesus has with theunclean spirit, but the passage tells us before this conflict that the peoplewere "astounded at [Jesus'] teaching" (Mark 1:22) because He spoke with "authority", unlike thescribes; but we are not told what a "new teaching" might be. It could be a safe bet, however, that none ofthese who were present had ever seen a man exorcised of an unclean spirit! It is likely, however, that what they are hearingis not "pop culture theology" but a genuine rendering of the Word of theLord. That would be new to them just as itis to us today.

What seems "new" to them, Ithink, is that perhaps this is the first time in memory that there has been atrue "prophet" among them (yes, I know Jesus is much more than aprophet!). When the Lord commissionedEzekiel to prophesy to the people of Israel, He did not guarantee His prophet anysuccess, but He did guarantee there will be no doubt about one thing: "Asfor [the people of Israel], whether they hear or whether they refuse - for theyare a rebellious house - yet they will know that a prophet has been amongthem" (2:5).

Whether I or any preacher occupying a pulpitis a divinely commissioned prophet is, again, not the point. It is engagement. It is the knowledge of a divine Covenant whoseterms you and I are called to be familiar with. It is a Covenant you and I are called to sign onto. It is the Covenant of Life. It is the Covenant of Christ. AMEN.

A Thought

2012-01-27T09:25:00.001-06:00

“Donot take to heart everything people say, lest you hear your servant cursingyou. For many times, also, your own heart has known that even you havecursed others.” Ecclesiastes 7:21-22

Itoccurs to me that for all the praying we do and need to do, there can probablyno more important element of our prayer time than self-examination; lookinginward to find those dark spots within that prevent us from being all the Lordhas created and called us to be. Even the writer of Ecclesiastesacknowledges such: “There is not a just (righteous) personon earth who does good and does not sin” (7:20).

Toovercome this, then, we must resolve within our hearts to hold ourselvesaccountable before we can put too much emphasis on holding othersaccountable. And this is big because accountability is a significantcomponent of church life! Not just to be in someone else’s business butto help one another through this challenging journey called “life”!

Lookwithin. Find a quiet space, pray through Scripture, and look deeply intowhat we are being told. Though we all have different spiritual giftsaccording to our Lord’s own good purposes, His message to us will always be thesame: I love you. And when you doubt this, look to Calvary and seewhere you should have been but where I chose to go in your place.

Weowe our Lord at least an honest evaluation. From this, I think, He willgrant to us peace like we’ve not known – when we come to terms with ourselves …long before we curse the sins of others.

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-24T08:31:00.001-06:00

“Donot put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man in whom there is no help.” Psalm 146:3

Thereis probably no more fitting scripture to remember during a political electionseason than this one! We choose those whom we believe will represent us well,but we often forget that our choices are a reflection of our values. Ifwe allow someone to step up and convince us that he (or she) alone has all theanswers and will “save” us from all bad things so much so that we believe thisperson, we are in way too deep!

Theday-to-day business of a representative government such as ours requires ourinvolvement and participation. If we neglect this privilege, the resultwill be as bad as if we had neglected our churches, our homes, our families,and other things that require attention and care. Being involved in thepolitical process, however, should not divide our allegiance between that whichrequires care – and that which demands devotion: our Holy Father.

Thereare no “messiahs” running for public office, try though some may to convince usotherwise. One will not destroy us anymore than one will save us. It is the Holy God alone who can “destroy both soul and body”, and it is HisCovenant in Christ which has already saved us!

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-23T10:45:00.001-06:00

“Thefool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. They are corrupt, and havedone abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.” Psalm 53:1

Youmay have noticed by now that atheism seems to have become all the rage, the newthing to do. For all the smoke these people blow about their absoluteknowledge of nothingness, they seem more determined than ever to “prove” thereis no God. And their “proof”? The believers’ inability to “prove” acase for God.

Wedon’t have to prove anything except by the way we live, the choices we make,and the words we speak. These are evidence of the “hope that is withinus”, but we do not have to “prove” anything except to the One who gives lifeand mercy and grace so abundantly. And to Him we only prove that we trustHim to lead our next steps.

Wedo not have to take on more than we can handle; the Lord alone knows ourlimitations. Our trust in Him, however, will be reflected in our beliefin something much greater than the present moment. For the unbeliever,this faith alone is more than they can handle, but this faith reflected in ourlives is the compelling factor that causes many to draw nearer and learn more –or pull away altogether. It is their choice, the choice they will beforced to live with; but if they are going to make an honest choice, let themchoose according to the Truth that is revealed in us. Let us be all Hecalls us to be.

Blessings,

Michael

Nothing to lose; Everything to gain

2012-01-21T21:49:00.002-06:00

Jonah 3:1-5, 10

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

Mark 1:14-20

There is a video coursing its way across the Internet inwhich a young man shares a poem. Thepoem is an expression of his apparent disdain for religion in general while hemaintains his devotion to Jesus. Forthis man and many others like him, Christianity has been “hijacked” (for lackof a better term) by religion and has been turned into something moreburdensome than liberating.

I will agree there is a “religionist” element inChristianity that has turned the missional Church into something more like apolitical movement that seeks not to “love our enemies” but rather to destroythem; not unlike the “religionists” of Jesus’ day. Yet I cannot agree with the young man’spremise that religion itself is inherently dangerous. Misunderstood and misappropriated, perhaps,but not dangerous. In fact, I would comecloser to suggesting this man’s expression comes up substantially short inunderstanding the true heart of religion. More to the point, I see a very dangerous, spiritually riskyshort-sightedness that even now continues to undermine the Church and what theBody of Christ is called to do and to be in a “lost” world that cannot – orwill not - find its way into the Light and Life that is the Covenant of God in Christ.

The word “religion” itself has its root in the same Latinword that defines “ligament”. That is tosay, the basis of religion goes far beyond defining a particular set of beliefsor practices. There is a connectionthat is inherent to religion, a connection that extends far beyond theindividual, a connection this anti-religion concept fails to grasp;perhaps because of scriptural ignorance, but almost certainly because of pride andmisguided independence that refuses to allow itself to be held accountable byothers. Religion is the “ligament” thatconnects the “members” to the greater Body of Christ, as expressed by St. Paulin his 1^st letter to the Corinthians: “Just as the body is one and hasmany members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body; so itis with Christ” (1 Cor 12:12).

To try and disconnect Jesus from the connective tissue thatis religion altogether, then, is disingenuous at best and dangerous atworst. This “movement” that has actuallybeen around in some form or fashion for decades is a lot like the “house ofsand” Jesus warns His disciples about in Matthew7:26: “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them willbe like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the windsblew and beat against that house until it fell – and great was its fall!”

Jesus cannot be disconnected from His divine nature – IF –we believe He is the essence of the Holy God – IF – we believe He is “God inthe flesh”. At the risk of repeatingmyself, Jesus did not spring up from nothing. He has His own “root” as the “vine” from which branches must grow (John 15:1-2) and for which the HolyFather serves as the “vine dresser” who prunes – or cuts away altogether – thatwhich no longer has the life of connection; that is to say, “dead wood” that nolonger bears fruit.

To say we can love Jesus without being “religious” is tosuggest we can follow Jesus without being connected to others; without beingconnected to the Greater Purpose to which we as “members of the Body” arecalled. It would suggest Jesus followsUS on our own chosen paths. To suggestsuch a thing would suggest Jesus has no connection to the Creator God, theJealous God, the Judging God, and yes, the Redeeming God who has a divinepurpose and will of His very own – all coming from the so-called Old Testament.

We must embrace the inherent religious connection thatdisplays itself in YHWH’s call to Jonah – a call that was in direct conflictwith Jonah’s will! Jonah was called topreach repentance and new life to the people of Nineveh;ENEMIES of Israel! No Israelite in his right mind would offerhope to those who have brought nothing but fear and terror to Israel, and yet here is Israel’s GOD calling an Israelite forward tooffer divine forgiveness and redemption to Israel’s enemies!

We see the religious connection in St. Paul’s encouragement to the Corinthian church in which even as St. Paul calls the peopleof the Church to DIS-connect from that which binds them against divine will, heis still calling them to a religious connection that transcends “personal”.

We see the religion being restored whenJesus begins His ministry by calling forth those future apostles – BUILDERS OFTHE CHURCH – who will get “religion” back on the right track. We must understand these apostles are notbeing called into a “personal relationship” that is the end itself; we mustunderstand their “personal relationship” – your “personal relationship”, my“personal relationship” - with Messiah as a MEANS to a much greater end than wecan possibly fathom!

It is the common Journey that connects us not only to oneanother but to Messiah and ultimately to the Holy Father! It is the Journey that has its root in theExodus when the shackles of bondage had been destroyed and the people of YHWHset free for that Journey. Our religiousconnection takes us to the Table of the Holy Communion which has its root in thePassover, that incredible moment in eternity when Sin and Death received theirown “death sentences”.

It is the common Journey “members” can endure only bybeing connected to the “Body of Christ”; the connection that helps to ensure wesurvive this incredibly challenging Journey to the Promised Land. It is a Journey fraught with danger asdescribed in Matthew 24, the journeyin which “many will fall away … and betray one another”. It is the journey in which “manyfalse prophets will rise and lead many astray”. But it is the journey whose end alone willdetermine who will be “saved”, those who “endure to the end” (Matthew 24:9-14).

You see, salvation lies not in the beginning, according toJesus, but in the end. The Journey mustcome first, and it must be endured; but this is only possible if we areconnected – connected not only to one another but connected intimately to Jesusthe Messiah … and connected ultimately to our Holy Father. It is the Journey which will require much, aJourney that seems to ask much more than we can see to receive; but this is theentire point of “religious” faith.

We have nothing to lose that will not be lost sooner orlater – and everything yet to be seen to be gained! It is the Kingdom of Heaven. It is Eternal Life in the Holy Father’sKingdom by the path set forth by the Holy Son.

What is the real issue?

2012-01-20T23:20:00.002-06:00

Effective 1 August 2012, most healthcare plans will berequired to provide coverage for contraceptives without co-pay or deductibleexpenses; in other words, “free” birth control for all who are covered under ahealth plan. The idea is about“liberty”, according to DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who believes “thisproposal strikes a balance between respecting religious freedom and increasingaccess to important preventive services.”

Churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship are exemptfrom this requirement, according to “thehill.com”, but religious-affiliatedhospitals and universities will only have a one-year delay in implementationbefore they will also be required to either provide this benefit or shut downaltogether.

The question stands as to what “balance” between respectingreligious denominations that stand opposed to artificial birth control andone’s inferred “right” to birth control will actually look like, and whetherthe rights of one group may supersede the rights of another. The US Constitution directly and specificallyaddresses the protection of religious liberty in prohibiting the US governmentfrom “infringing” upon these rights while the matter of health care is notaddressed at all. There is also anotherstanding question that would ask how, in a society in which birth control isreadily available, this proposal somehow “protects” or enhances a right whichevidently already exists.

This new regulation is only a small part of what willincrementally roll down from so-called “Obamacare” that seeks to address agenuine health care crisis in this country, but there is a significant elementof health care that still does not seem to have been sufficiently addressed: howto define “adequate” care. More to thespecific point and coverage of birth control pills, is this a component ofhealth care that cannot be addressed in a more responsible and cost-effectiveway like, say, abstinence and focusing one’s attention on something a littlemore pressing like, say, getting a job or an education or otherwise living afulfilling life?

The tired argument has stood for quite some time that easieraccess to birth control will diminish the need for abortion services (a fight,incidentally, that remains to be settled in this debate!), but we mustunderstand there will be a reduction in services once hospitals anduniversities withdraw from such programs altogether. Whether these or any others will actuallyclose their doors rather than submit to enforcement of such overbearingregulations remains to be seen.

Artificial birth control is itself an issue that has beenaddressed by the Roman Catholic Church; which stands consistently andofficially opposed to the use of such contraceptives, believing and teachingthat procreation is as much a matter of natural law as of religiousdoctrine. However, the issue at hand isnot birth control itself but whether entities, regardless of religiousaffiliation, should be expected or forced to provide birth control pills “free”of any charge.

Subsequent to this issue, then, is the reality thatinsurance is a pool of funds into which members contribute to the pool to coverextraordinary expenses related to claims; meaning each participant will bepaying for something they may find socially questionable or morallyobjectionable. The point becomes evenmore acute if the courts decide the federal government can force everyone topurchase health insurance, a matter pending before the US Supreme Court.

So the issue at hand cannot be a matter of whether or notone is ok with birth control. Itcertainly cannot be a matter of whether married persons are more entitled tobirth control than single persons. Theissue at hand is a conflict between a perceived right and an enumerated right;that which may or may not be inferred by the Constitution and that which isspelled out. The issue is whether thegovernment is overreaching, trampling on an enumerated right in favor of asocial or political demand.

Access to birth control is determined and hindered only byone’s personal preferences and choices. Whether one’s right to such access is hindered by one’s inability orunwillingness to pay seems a matter of government regulation, forcing “me” topay for “your” questionable claim. Pity. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays

A Thought

2012-01-19T08:40:00.001-06:00

“As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been my food day and night while they continually say to me, ‘Where is your God?’” Psalm 42:1-3

It is easy to see that even the psalmist had his moments of doubt, and it seems these doubts left him spiritually drained and empty especially when those around him questioned the reality of his God in the midst of his misery. I think what is revealed in this psalm of lamentation is also that of an inherent nature in humans we don’t often recognize: if we have a soul – and we surely must – it is not a part of our humanity but the divine part of us, the image of God. Our doubts reveal a conflict between the very human part of our nature and our divine self, when we struggle to tell the difference between “want” and “need”, “vengeance” and “justice”.

The human part of our being is very strong, but it is in the surrender of will when we are finally able to touch the Divine and discover our better selves. Only then will doubts be cast aside. Only then can we step forward into the unknown with confidence and in faith.

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-18T08:26:00.002-06:00

“’I know the thoughts I think toward you,’ says the Lord, ‘thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.’” Jeremiah 29:11-13

In the context Jeremiah is writing to the people of Israel and making it known to them that their time of captivity in Babylon will come to an end, and they will be returned to their homeland. It is also important to remember that the overall context is about the Lord’s Covenant, not the individual persons. Their future is intrinsically connected with His divine purpose, so His promise is within that Covenant. That is, the people of Israel must hold up their end in order to be part of the everlasting Covenant; they must make a choice. Only those who “search with ALL their heart” will find Him; then they will find their place within His eternal Covenant.

This is a very important part of understanding what the Lord promises and why. We must not remove ourselves from our part in the Covenant of Christ by coming to believe we get all the benefits but offer Him nothing in return. We must be “seekers” and “searchers” … and not incidentally, but purposefully and intentionally; because His certain Promise is not incidental but is purposeful and intentional.

Enjoy the blessing of our Lord today. Our futures in this crazy world with its economic uncertainties do not depend on humans; they depend on our response to His divine call.

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-16T09:25:00.002-06:00

“Jesus said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’” Matthew 9:12-13

Jesus is quoting Hosea 6:6 in telling the self-righteous crowd there is little He can do for them since they are already a little too full of themselves and their lineage to Abraham, Moses, and the Law. The context of the Hosea passage says it best: “Your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away”.

Declaring our own righteousness is, in a word, dangerous. It is spiritually risky that we would on any level declare that we have already reached the pinnacle of our faith and have done all we need to do. It is sort of like making the minimum payment due on a credit card. An obligation has been fulfilled, but the debt still exists. Simply “going to church” may meet the “minimum due”, but this act alone – like the ‘sacrifices’ (religious practices) disavowed by the Lord – does in no way fulfill all righteousness. It’s a good start, but the journey must never end. Not there, and certainly not in this lifetime.

Rather than to declare our own “wellness”, let us never find ourselves so “well” that we no longer feel a need for the Savior of the World. Let us stay well and maintain our spiritual health by following the Great Physician’s orders; consistently and faithfully. It is the “Way” (John 14:6) to which Jesus Himself testifies.

Blessings,

Michael

Catch and Release: a Mississippi governor now on trial in the court of public opinion

2012-01-14T19:43:00.001-06:00

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is “comfortable” with his decision to pardon so many convicts on his way out of office, a decision that sparked an outcry recently when it was discovered that among these 215 pardons, some were convicted murderers. Four of these convicted murderers were apparently trustees who worked in the Governor’s Mansion. Gov. Barbour had stated in an earlier interview that it was a Mississippi “tradition” for governors to pardon trustees who worked in the Governor’s Mansion (he did not say if this tradition included convicted murderers).

The governor also stated of these 215 granted clemency, 189 were already released from prison. He apparently pardoned them after the fact in one sweeping motion.

Being an Arkansas resident, I am hardly qualified to speak to Mississippi politics. What I have always understood as it pertains to presidential or gubernatorial pardons, however, is that these pardons usually involve not personal preference or “Christian forgiveness”, as stated by the Mississippi governor, but by an element of doubt that may exist in a particular case. Thus it is not supposed to be an arbitrary decision based on personal favor but a judicial one. Just as a jury is charged with determining guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on evidence presented in court, so must a governor or president review trial records and court transcripts to ensure that one who is fairly convicted of murder serves her or his full term as required by a court of law. It is a judge’s or a jury’s responsibility to mete out jail terms. A governor or president should be able to prove (or be reasonably certain of) doubt as to guilt or innocence based only on evidence presented, not gut feelings.

Governors and presidents have lived to regret certain decisions made while in office, and pardons must surely be among these decisions. Arkansas’ former governor Mike Huckabee pardoned a convict who was later convicted of murder. Former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis paid a high political price in his run for president against George H. W. Bush for a pardon by his hand that went wrong. Surely there have been others.

It is an awesome responsibility for a governor or president to wield such power over the life of another human being – including signing an order of execution – but that power must not be made independent of existing law. It may be “traditional”, but so are drunken fraternity parties. Tradition does not always mean “right” … or just.

Beyond this, however, is the governor’s use of Christian theology as a way of justifying his decisions. By his reasoning, all who are convicted by a criminal court in Mississippi should then immediately be forgiven of their transgressions and sent on their way because “Mississippians are Christians and believe in second chances”. Surely there are many others within the corrections system in that state who are genuinely sorry for what they’ve done. Surely there are many within that system who really, really will not repeat their mistakes.

Here’s the thing, though. Simon Wiesenthal was a survivor of the Holocaust. As he wrote in his compelling book, “The Sunflower”, Mr. Wiesenthal related an experience when he, as a slave worker of the Nazi regime, was taken to a wounded German soldier whose only desire before his imminent death was to apologize to a Jew, any Jew, for his part in the slaughter. Mr. Wiesenthal wrote that he bolted from the room after hearing the soldier’s story of remorse – without forgiving him (he later came to believe the soldier’s remorse was genuine).

In the book, however, Mr. Wiesenthal was debating whether he even had a right – on behalf of all Jews – to forgive this soldier for his act. He had believed (as did many of his Jewish compatriots) only those Jews who had been directly harmed by this particular soldier had a right to forgive him for his part (and incidentally, the family this soldier was sorry for killing did not survive the encounter. They were all burned alive in a building they had been shut into).

So what do we think? Can the governor of a state, or the president for that matter, arbitrarily “forgive” a convicted murderer in the name of Christian forgiveness? Can executive clemency be construed as Christian forgiveness? Does an elected executive have the right to “forgive” a murder without serious judicial consideration and/or input from the victims’ families? Even if the law allows him or her that privilege, does a governor possess that “right”?

A Thought

2012-01-12T17:51:00.002-06:00

“Another of Jesus’ disciples said to Him, ‘Lord, let me first go and bury my father [then I will follow You]’. But Jesus said to him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.’” Matthew 8:21-22

Scholars suggest this man’s father was not yet dead because the Law would have kept him from being out and about if his father had just died. So it would seem the man was bound by another obligation he felt tied to, family and perhaps social obligations more important than getting on board with Christ. Jesus returned with a rather sober reminder that, in essence, he would be choosing death in the world over life in Christ!

It has been said Jesus calls disciples, but He has no use for stragglers; people who say they have other, more important obligations (the way of the world) to first deal with and answer before they can (or will) commit to the Lord (the way of the Cross and, ultimately to Life). We have plenty of excuses that have more to do with a social orientation by which we have been conditioned, but these excuses – even with the best of intentions – only put us in the same category of this man who delayed his commitment in favor of other (more important to him) obligations and would be, according to Jesus’ words, choosing death.

If there is something holding us back, we must decide whether it is more important than a life of discipleship. We must know if there is something that prevents us from fully embracing the life the Lord calls us to. We must choose “this day whom we will serve”; not tomorrow.

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-09T08:19:00.002-06:00

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life; there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

In the continuing Sermon on the Mount, John Wesley believed Jesus was telling His followers about what we now know as Christian ethics; that way of behavior the Church (that’s you and me!) is called and expected to answer. The choices we make we usually make for the sake of expediency or in consideration of how we will be affected. In many ways these are probably good choices.

However, this passage is set within a much broader context. Verse 12: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you …”, and in vss 15-20 we are told about the “tree and its fruit”. This latter passage is speaking of false prophets “who come in sheep’s clothing but … are ravenous wolves”. It might be more in keeping with the “wide gate” through which the easier choices can be found that do not build up the church … that ignore those around us who are suffering through no fault of their own or who are being misled through a so-called “prosperity gospel” that has everything to do with material gain and little to do with the path Christ Himself followed. Those who follow these false promises are being virtually eaten alive by these “ravenous wolves”.

The Bible teaches us to “bear one another’s burdens”. I think maybe this is a reflection of Jesus’ Sermon that expounds on the expectations of the Law which is far more than a list of “do’s and don’ts”. It is how the people of the Lord are distinguished from the rest of the world. It is how to tell the difference between those who believe … and those who don’t.

Everything we do matters because every action we take – or don’t take – and every word we speak is a testament to our choice of gate. We must choose wisely which gate to pass through. It is the one Jesus chose for Himself.

Blessings,

Michael

What Really Happened

2012-01-08T08:43:00.003-06:00

Genesis 1:1-8 (NKJV)
Mark 1:4-11

“The ultimate meaning of the Bible escapes human limits and calls us to a recognition that every life is holy, every life is loved, and every life is called to be all that life is capable of being. The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully, and to have the courage to be our most complete selves.” Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong

This quote came to mind as I was reading the lection for this week along with another book, “Jesus Wars” (Philip Jenkins), that explores the early history of the Church and the various councils by which the doctrines we know today came to be developed such as expressed in the Nicene Creed from the 4th century Council of Nicaea. The book examines how religion in the 21^st century has evolved from those early days, and continues to evolve even now.

Comparing and contrasting the disputes that occurred during these early years - they were many and bloody! - I have concluded that we can no longer live responsibly as serious disciples of Christ in the blissful ignorance of believing any doctrine without a serious review of the Bible from which these doctrines are developed. We must also not be reduced to searching the Bible for religious answers, to prove someone "wrong", or to justify our biblically questionable choices by taking a very small passage out of its appropriate context. Rather we are to find what our Lord is calling us into. In other words, we should be searching for "life answers".

The bishop’s article from which the quote came was part of a much broader article in which he explores several polls which reveal the general biblical ignorance especially among the faithful that is so pervasive in today’s Church. We don’t often realize the difference between historical religion and what is actually “in the Bible”. For instance, that Jesus is "fully human and fully God" may be suggested or implied with several passages of Scripture, but this did not actually become a full-fledged "doctrine" until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. And we probably don't really want to know how many men were murdered or committed murder to make this doctrine possible - or to oppose it!

When this confusion between "historical religion" and biblical knowledge occurs, then, we get caught up in doctrinal disputes that we mistakenly thought had been settled during the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. We continue today to defend “right” practices and beliefs – called "dogma" and “orthodoxy” – and condemn those who don’t do or believe correctly. Worse, in our relative ignorance of what is actually "in the Bible", we are inclined to make things up as we go, most generally to justify our personal choices; ironically all in the name of "grace".

Because of these disputes, many have found themselves separated from the Church – alienated, perhaps – because even the Church can appear to be somewhat confused about the difference between what is “right” and what is “righteous”. Among common practices and beliefs we are familiar with today, we seem confused between what is “mystical” and what we have come to believe to be, for lack of a better word, “magical”; which is to suggest that over the years we have found or developed personally satisfying beliefs that cannot be biblically justified and don’t really require anything on our part; that which Mahatma Gandhi condemned as "worship without sacrifice"; one of his "seven deadly sins".

We seem to understand that Jesus, as the “beloved Son of God”, did not need to be baptized for He had nothing from which to repent; and even though we are offered a vision of “the Spirit descending like a dove”, we also remember that the time for the Holy Spirit will not be until the Day of Pentecost – after the Ascension when Jesus is lifted up into Heaven. So with all these mysteries seemingly settled, what we often derive from this passage is, quite simply, a “prescription” of baptism, just something we are supposed to do only because Jesus did it. And you know something? I don't think that's good enough. Mark offers little else beyond what we are reading from this passage - that a baptism took place - but Matthew fills in a gap for us as to the purpose of what we are witnessing: the baptism of the Christ is being done to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15), Jesus’ words to John when John objected to baptizing the Lord.

Surely what we are invited to be a part of goes much deeper than mere “instruction” for a rite of passage or initiation into the Church. If this were so, I would like to believe we would be given more details as to exactly how it should properly be done. To this day we are involved in disputes as to the proper timing of the baptism as well as the means. We seem more "superstitious" about the whole practice than we are concerned about righteous! If this “instruction” were to be taken literally, we might surmise that “proper” baptism cannot come except in a river of moving water (perhaps specifically the Jordan itself) at the age of 30 years. We even argue about the amount of water required to wash away sin and whether sprinkling or pouring will do in place of immersion. We are not told exactly how much water was involved nor is the baptism itself described in any useful detail. We just know Jesus “came out” of the water likely the same way He went in: by foot. Nothing is inferred or implied, but we have added details over the course of a couple thousand years. In other words, we've made things up as we go along and called it "right" - but we've not really concerned ourselves with "righteousness".

I think, then, we are not left with our own devices more than we are invited to look deeper and find something much more “theological” than man-made; that which defines the relationship between YHWH and humanity. It is not about what we are called to do – rather, it is much more about what we are called to be in this incredible moment when, according to Russell Rathbun (“Cosmic Crossing”), “there is a tear in the firmament that [once] separated the realm of God from the realm of humanity … a parting that will never be repaired … when God will continue to be among His people in a way He has not been before.”

This is HUGE! If this is so, we are far beyond a simple biblical "ordinance" because, unlike the very detailed worship instructions in Exodus and Leviticus, we are witnessing an incredible and intentional connection between Heaven and Earth, a purposeful and intimate connection between YHWH and humanity! Like the temple veil which had been torn asunder upon Jesus' death on the Cross, a definitive disconnect between the Divine and the secular has suddenly found its meaningful connection in such a way that life as we know it must never be the same again! This is why our United Methodist tradition considers it "sacramental".

How is this accomplished? I think the answer lies in the Voice which came from Heaven after the Baptism of the Christ: "You are My Son, the Beloved. With You I am well pleased." What is it about this moment in eternity that so pleased our Holy Father? Was He pleased that Jesus had the will to present Himself for baptism? Was He pleased only with the very "being" of Jesus being Jesus? Was He legitimizing Jesus as Messiah, the divinely anointed One? Or was He - and is He - pleased with what has taken place NOT in the water itself but rather in the dynamic fusion that has taken place between Himself and His beloved creation - you and me? This, my dear friends, is worthy of a response - AND - a commitment to know more.

I think the Lord must surely be pleased that this "tear in the firmament" has finally taken place and that the Redemption Story now has Hands and Feet. I think the Lord is well pleased that in Christ Jesus, the connection between the Holy and the unholy has finally diminished the gap that previously existed. I think the Lord is well pleased that soon enough, the "diminished gap" will one day be finally and completely closed. It is that day of rejoicing when lost souls are found, and wayward souls are restored. It is that glorious day when we will hear within ourselves that Blessed Voice which will affirm and justify even us; and through us, the unbelievers will say, "Christ the Lord is alive and well!"

But none of this will be accomplished in biblical ignorance. None of this is possible without an active engagement with the Lord through His Word. It is as John Wesley once expressed: "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading; a reading people will always be a knowing people."

It is the stark difference between what we "think" ... and what we "know" to be true.

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A Thought

2012-01-05T09:50:00.002-06:00

“It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading. A reading people will always be a knowing people. A people who talk much will know little.” John Wesley

John Wesley, Methodism’s founder, was talking about Scripture reading primarily though it seems clear he was as well versed in the classics as well as the writings of the early Church fathers and the Reformers. For our purposes, however, we must be concerned with the reality of our Lord and what He has to say to the entire Church. Spirituality is all well and good, but it cannot be said that the Spirit of the Lord will call us to go against what is clearly written in Scripture; and because the Bible itself is so readily accessible and available, we cannot use ignorance of what is written as an excuse.

The point of such focused and disciplined reading, as Wesley saw it, was to “grow in grace”; to learn more about our Lord (and ourselves!) and draw closer to Him as we grow in grace, love, and holiness. In other words, to work harder to become more like Him while knowing what He is actually like – as opposed to making something up to suit our own fancy based only on what we “heard” from the preacher. If we do not know Him because we do not read His Word, how can we claim to know anything about Him at all, let alone call Him a “personal” Savior? Would you refer to any friend as a “personal” friend if you know nothing about them?

We not only need to know more about the Lord, we also desperately need the sanctuary of those moments spent with Him. Clearly we do not do Sabbath as the Lord intended for us, so we need to reclaim these Sabbath moments; rest for the weary soul, and to learn to “test the spirits” who are very real and do seek to draw us away from the Lord.

Give yourselves the greatest gift you can give yourselves today and each day: a little peace, a little quiet, a little solitude … and more blessings than you can count!

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-04T08:52:00.002-06:00

“Since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:28-29

The writer of Hebrews seemed to believe our Lord deserves far better than what we seem to offer him today. He suggests “grace” is that means by which we may offer anything to the Lord “acceptably”, yet “grace” seems to have become our “alibi”, our “excuse” for not trying harder (or not trying at all) to serve Him in an acceptable way.

We must remember that the biblical language of “grace” is defined, very simply, as the Lord’s favor bestowed on us – favor for which we are not worthy, favor we cannot earn but given earnestly and purely from His own heart. A gift we know we cannot reciprocate adequately. Yet when someone gets us a gift we did not expect, do we not do the socially acceptable – and EXPECTED – thing and rush out to get a return gift so as to not look foolish or ungrateful? Why, then, would we do any less if we know that such a grand gift has been freely offered to us from our Lord; the Lord we profess, the Lord we claim has “saved” us?

We have been given much in the way of “grace”, but we have not been excused from serving Him daily. Indeed why would we even want to be excused from such? For if we cannot or will not serve Him in this life, what makes us think we will want to serve Him in the Life which is to come? Compared to what our world demands from us in the form of bills and taxes and other requirements that cannot be neglected, our Lord really does not ask for much and yet offers so much. This reality is worthy of a reverent and intensely respectful response.

Blessings,

Michael

A Thought

2012-01-03T14:58:00.003-06:00

“I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Revelation 21:2

I have never been one for New Year’s Resolutions because I never much saw the point. We all have ideas for what we would like to see but if there is no plan of action or commitment to see resolutions to fruition, they are a lot like the pipe dreams we have for that day when we win the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes! It’s fun to dream.

The Revelation is a vision – NOT A DREAM! - granted to John for the sake of the Church; it is the Lord’s Plan of intent – not a dream of wishes! We have to decide whether our church is adequately “prepared as a bride”. Do we have a plan of our own? Are we committed to this plan? We must evaluate where we are and who we are, and then we must compare this reality with the vision. Are we where we need to be? Are we all we are called to be? What must we do to fulfill this vision? It is not enough to fall back on “grace” because “grace” is what the Lord has done; we must commit to what we will do in response to that “grace”.

My prayer is that 2012 will be a year of renewed commitment and not just wishes. My prayer is that the people of the Lord will experience revival. My hope is that our Lord will see fit to entrust to our care the preparation of His beloved bride, the Church, and not ultimately be disappointed by what we failed to do with what we already have.

All of His blessings for 2012 to you and yours,

Michael

Christmas 2011: "The Light's in our eyes"

2011-12-25T09:10:00.002-06:00

Isaiah 52:7-10

John 1:1-14

Merry Christmas! Your presence in worship on this holy of Holy Days, Christmas on a Sunday, is a testament to that which you know to be true. You have seen the Light, and you have rejected the darkness of the world to come into that Light for all to see. You have rejected the temporary, yet constantly changing and exhausting demands of the world and have sought sanctuary in the reality of the eternal Holy. You have defied the will of the dominant culture and have ascended to something greater and longer lasting. By choosing to worship our Lord today, you have made your God and Father primary rather than incidental because you have come to realize our Holy Father really does not ask much of us; and you have taught your children a valuable lesson.

Christmas is old news to the world that has over the years come to be taken for granted, but we notice that in the last few years an unbelieving world seems to be pushing back in resistance. By the looks of it, it would appear the pagans are trying to reclaim a solstice that once was theirs and into which the early Church inserted the Mass of the Christ in an effort to reach them, in an effort to SHARE THIS GOOD NEWS of the birth of Messiah to a new generation and culture! It is the same glorious story told over and over to every generation, and yet it is a story that should not get old. It is that time of year almost everyone looks forward to because there is something magical about the whole thing.

Why, then, does it have to end? I think it is because the Light begins to reveal something we would prefer to stay in the dark and hidden away.

Christmas is the season of revelation when we celebrate something we cannot begin to imagine but have spent the past 2000 years trying to explain: the Holy God of all creation revealing Himself in the perfection of humanity by coming to us as a Child into the very world spoken into existence by His Word; yet being revealed as that same "Word made Flesh", He found Himself rejected by His own creation. This was expressed by St. John some 2000 years ago and is strangely and sadly relevant and equally true even today. Only this time it is not the Jews to whom John refers.

I remember a funny story (written by Paul Lee Tan, "Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations") in which the late president Calvin Coolidge had returned home from worship early one Sunday afternoon. His wife had been sick and unable to attend, but she wanted to know what the pastor had spoken about in his sermon. Mr. Coolidge responded, "He talked about sin". His wife pressed him for more details, so Mr. Coolidge was said to have responded: "I think he was against it."

The Church does not seem to like talking about "sin" much anymore (it's so negative and somewhat "offensive"); some traditions come dangerously close to suggesting that sin no longer exists for the Christian. We are a nation - and even a Church - fixated on being "politically correct" so as to be as inoffensive as possible. I agree to a certain extent because there is no good to come from inflicting harm or being offensive just because we can, and I think St. Paul would agree as well that it is preferable we at least show some common courtesy and basic respect toward one another even as it pertains to religious beliefs: "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with everyone" (Romans 12:18). St. Paul further states, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. [So] if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with food the one for whom Christ [also] died" (Romans 14:14-15).

Let us be clear, however. St. Paul is not talking about "food"; he is talking about something much more profound, of much greater substance and consequence. There is a practicality to our faith and the practice of our religion that demands daily acquiescence to the certain knowledge that we do not have to be "right" in order to be "righteous", but we must act within a certain level of consciousness that demands attention to be paid to others besides ourselves. For instance, we are aware of the so-called "seven deadly sins". Mahatma Gandhi, however, had his own list of "deadly sins" that should pique the conscience of every right-thinking human person regardless of religious affiliation: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, politics without principle, and worship without sacrifice.

It has been said so many times and in so many ways that we cannot appreciate the power of - or even the "need" for - a Savior until we can appreciate the power of sin itself; for if sin does not exist or is just not that big of a deal, there is no need of the Savior and Jesus is nothing more than a philosopher. It has been said that "because of sin man has taken the deity out of religion, the supernatural out of Christianity, the authority from the Bible, the Lord out of education, morality and virtue out of literature, beauty and truth out of art, ethics out of business, and fidelity out of marriage" (author unknown). So if there is no sin for which atonement is required, Jesus was just a prophet; just a teacher. And His painful death little more than an act of injustice and mob violence - which is nothing new or special.

One need only to have an honest look around - in and outside the Church - to know this all to be painfully true. And if such things can be said to be "going a bit too far", for instance toward censorship, then we understand - or should understand - that the birth of the Christ is overblown and that Jesus was nothing more than another preacher in a long line of preachers who was murdered for calling people of faith back into the fold of that faith - AND - calling "sin" out for what it really is.

When we allow this profound disconnect between "sin" and "salvation", we diminish - or eliminate altogether - the role of the Holy Son in the Holy Trinity. It is a falsehood to suggest that Christmas means different things to different people; this is perhaps the single, greatest deception of all time! It is not unlike Jesus speaking to His disciples about false prophets and false messiahs in Matthew 24. There have been many before, and there will be many more to come. People have been and will continue to be willingly misled by such false promises as "worship without sacrifice" because such reasoning gives us an excuse to step away. It denies that Ultimate Sacrifice made with Christ's own Blood and simply says Jesus died in vain; for there was no sin for which to atone.

Whether the unbelieving world will admit it or not, we all have a desperate need to know what Christmas really means. And it can only mean ONE THING: "The Lord so loved the world that He gave His only Son ..." And my guess is that if we knew - REALLY KNEW - what the birth of Messiah means to the entire world, there would be NO CHURCHES CLOSED ON CHRISTMAS DAY regardless of what day of the week Christmas falls on! If we really could understand and appreciate our desperate need for a Savior, churches would be open each morning so the faithful could prepare themselves AND ONE ANOTHER for the day ahead - AND - the churches would reopen at noon for the faithful to recharge for the afternoon - AND - reopen again in the late afternoon so the faithful could prepare for the evening's challenges and give thanks for all that day brought forth.

But we don't. We don't because we have mistakenly pushed aside the "Word made Flesh" in favor of the world of flesh. We have chosen not "two sides of the same coin" in works of piety and works of mercy; we have chosen another coin altogether. We have decided against following the Light of Christ and have chosen instead to turn in another direction - because that "Light" is just getting in our eyes.

In the name of the Holy Father, the Holy Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A Thought

2011-12-21T09:25:00.000-06:00

“We have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first; that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:19-21

I am more and more convinced that part of the mystery of Scripture, those parts most of us find difficult to understand, is in reminding us of our need for the Lord. After all, how much need for the Lord could there be if we could figure out all things, all mysteries, for ourselves? But we must also be very careful in that familiar saying, “The Bible means different things to different people”. I would agree that the Bible in general is either important for some people or it is not, but to suggest the Lord says one thing to person A but a whole different thing to person B from the same biblical passage can be dangerous.

To be sure, we will interpret what we read according to many factors; among these being our level of spiritual development as well as where we happen to be in our lives at any given time. This is also why group Bible studies are so important to the disciple. We often need to be brought back to earth by the perspectives of other believers lest we take something entirely off the wall from Scripture that can lead us far off the path of righteousness.

In the end it is about “reverence”, not “scholarship”; it is about “righteousness”, not being “right”. Some of the most educated atheists and agnostics I know are as well versed in Scripture as they are in classical literature or poetry; they know well what they have read, but it has no real meaning for them.

Consider the difficult passages of Scripture to be divine “whispers” by which we are compelled to draw closer to the Lord so that we may hear Him more clearly, for it is this intimate encounter that makes our Lord real.

A Thought

2011-12-14T08:27:00.001-06:00

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” G.K. Chesterton

Jesus never promised us an easy path; in fact He taught that the difficult and dangerous path was the road less traveled but the one that would lead us where we need to go. Too many, however, believe they have found an alternate path that is much easier and less challenging and have therefore scoffed at Jesus’ very words.

The Holy Day season is no less the challenge especially for the Church. To stay focused on what is really important with all the commercial distractions is probably what makes Christmas much more the challenge than Easter! We must stay tuned into the only Promise we can count on, the only Promise that actually came to fruition, the only Promise that committed to showing us the way Home – before that Promise was destroyed by those who chose an alternate route.

Our Lord has been given the “keys” to every door we need to enter through. Only those who are committed to His path will find the way home. We must not allow the world to distract us, and we must NEVER allow anyone or anything to convince us an easier way has been discoverd. That way simply does not lead to the Promised Land.

3rd Sunday of Advent: Beyond the End of the Nose

2011-12-11T08:45:00.001-06:00

Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11
John 1:6-8, 19-28

"Among you stands One whom you do not know, the One who is coming after me." - St. John the Baptist, John 1:26b, 27a

"Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of My family, you did it to Me ... [yet] truly do I [also] tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me." Jesus the Christ, Matthew 25:40, 45

"Remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Jesus the Christ, Matthew 28:20

So the big question is this: Is the Christ to "return", or can it be equally stated that He never really left? There is no denying the Resurrection just as there can be no reasonable denial of the Ascension when the apostles witnessed for themselves the Lord being "carried up into heaven" (Luke 24:51b). But we also remember that awesome Day of Pentecost when the promised "Helper", the Holy Spirit came down and the Church born; when "there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind [that] filled the entire house where [the apostles] were sitting. Divided tongues as of fire appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them" (Acts 2:2-4).

We continue the spiritual journey begun that day through Advent not as a countdown to a Holy Day commemorating what has already taken place, but rather as a continuing spiritual assessment of whether we the Church have properly maintained and defended the fine tradition of St. John the Baptist in having adequately "prepared the way of the Lord" - OR - if not, what we must be prepared to do as we remember not only to celebrate that great and awesome day when Heaven touched the Earth but to remember that the Promised Land of the Kingdom which is to come is still just beyond the horizon. If we are to continue to be the Body of Christ redeemed by His blood, it is necessary that we continue the spiritual journey and resist the temptation to call it "good" and "done" come December 26.

Yet this is exactly what will happen for many because fatigue will finally settle in. We have all seen the energy so many put into preparations for the coming Holy Day, and I honestly cannot think of a better time than for Christmas to fall on Sunday because, quite frankly, a good Sabbath rest will be in order. There is also no more appropriate thing to do than to worship the Lord on His very special day which, if we think about it, is truly a marvelous day for all of humanity. As we are reminded in the lighting of today's candle, we anticipate with great JOY that something wonderful is upon us! And we look forward in joyful anticipation because everything we are excited about and can be excited about is that which has yet to be revealed - just like an unwrapped Christmas gift!

The question remains, however. Did the Lord ever really "leave" so much so that His return is something we anticipate, especially when while He walked among us He taught us such profound lessons - AND - gave His Church the certain Promise that He will "always" be with us? When we are baptized, when we make a profession of faith, when we are confirmed in the Church, and when we repent of our sinful ways and obvious mistakes; we are aligning ourselves with Christ and are making that public confession so that we speak in His behalf, we act in His behalf, and we bear witness to that which we know to be true. This, my dear friends, is the Church, the Body of Christ.

The Spirit of the Lord continues to teach us and to guide us, that very essence of the Holy God and Father who reassures us when we doubt, who comforts us when we are afraid, and even jerks a little knot in our spiritual tails when we get a little too full of ourselves or stray too far off the path of the righteous journey. The Holy Lord promised Joshua that as long as he remained faithful to the Law which had been imparted to Moses, as long as he "meditated on the Law day and night", as long as he did not add to or take away from that which has been written, the Lord promised that "I will not fail you nor forsake you" ... and ... "I am with you wherever you go" (Joshua 1:5-9).

I think it is safe and a faithful thing to be able to say with confidence that the Lord is with His beloved Church. It is a wonderful and reassuring comfort to know with certainty that as long as we follow the Lord faithfully and "meditate on His word day and night", and as long as we do not "add to or take away from" the Word of the Lord, He "will not fail [us] nor forsake [us]". And let's face it: there are many days when so many of us have our doubts for this one simple reason: we see with our eyes and hear with our ears that evil appears to flourish - in and outside the Church. Even the so-called "Occupy" movement has captured the attention and imagination of many because whether we agree with these people or not, we can see how excess wealth can so easily corrupt.

We've known it all along, but we have been conditioned to turn a blind eye to it because it no longer shocks us. We've just learned to work around it. And if we are to be honest with ourselves; as long as we are doing ok personally, we just don't get that fired up. It is not until we lose our own jobs or our own homes or when our own investment portfolios begin to shrivel that we finally appreciate the gravity of the situation. It is like the saying that came from Nazi Germany attributed to German pastor Martin Niemoller: "When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, for I was not a communist. When the Nazis came for the social democrats I remained silent, for I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unions I did not speak out, for I was not a trade unionist. When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, for I was not a Jew. When they finally came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

Pastor Niemoller took a lot of heat from German citizens - and ended up imprisoned by the Nazis - because he refused to let himself or the nation of German citizens and especially Christians off the hook who had turned a blind eye to the atrocities of their day. They knew what was going on, but it was safer for them to pay homage to the Fuhrer than to admit that evil flourishes when decent people remain silent. As long as the Nazis were not coming for them, as long as they had jobs and money, there was no problem. This narrow mindset is called "not looking beyond the end of your own nose", and it is a travesty when Christians allow themselves to get so caught up in such narrow visions without remembering Christ's own words: "Whatever you do (or don't do) for the least of these, you do (or don't do) for Me."

The magnitude of evil, however, is overwhelming. It is not until we are actively engaged in such spiritual warfare that we can finally and completely appreciate the raw power of evil, and then finally realize our own limitations in the face of such evil. Yet even when evil seems to triumph, when evil seems to get its own way, and when we finally realize that evil itself cannot be stopped by humans alone; we remember the Lord's assurance to the prophet Isaiah that the coming Day of the Lord will be "the DAY OF VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD" (Isaiah 61:2). Evil will finally have its comeuppance and will face the full fury and wrath of our Holy Father.

Until that glorious Day, then, the faithful Church waits; but we wait with the joyful knowledge and assurance of faith that until that time when the Trumpet shall sound, our Lord has assured us that He will not "fail nor forsake" those who pursue Him relentlessly and follow Him faithfully. Yet until that Day is upon us, the Church must tirelessly announce the coming of the One "whose sandal thong we are not worthy to untie"; the One who did come, the One who was crucified for our sins, the One who will come again. In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A Thought

2011-12-07T09:07:00.001-06:00

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the House of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:30-33

There is great anticipation this time of year because we have seen the Light of Gabriel’s witness to Mary. We also look forward to the family gatherings, the church programs and cantata presentations, and “feel good” Christmas movies. It is a wonderful time of year when, as stated in a Christmas movie, “We become the kind of person we always hoped we would be.”

We can never get so caught up in our revelry, however, that we forget that this time of year is also one of profound loneliness and depression for those who have lost loved ones, for those who have no family to speak of, for those who continue to struggle in this challenging economy and – above all else – those who do not yet believe that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son …”

Let the Light of Christ shine forth in all we do this Holy Day season. Let us be the messengers of Glad Tidings as Gabriel was to Mary, and let us receive this Good News as joyously and as reverently as Mary did. This is the true witness of the Church.

2nd Sunday of Advent - Striving to be found

2011-12-05T14:46:00.001-06:00

2 Peter 3:8-15a
Mark 1:1-8

It has often been said that the apostles seemed to believe the Lord would return to establish His Kingdom during their lifetimes. It would likely have been incomprehensible for them to think that some 2000 years later, the Church would still be found waiting (can we think 2000 years ahead??). I think, then, they would have appreciated that the Church sometime in the 5th-6th century would move to establish the practice and season of Advent as a means to help the Church to not take the coming Day of the Lord for granted and to help the faithful to "prepare the way of the Lord [and] make His paths straight."

Yet here we are some 2000 years later talking about something that is as inconceivable to us as any other thing we can imagine; the End of the World, the End of Days, the End of Time, the Day of the Lord. Advent was much simpler when we were children because it was merely a countdown to Christmas and Santa Claus. Once December 26 hit the mark, it was all over. No more fuss, no more muss, no more PRESSURE! Put everything away, give it not another thought, and wait until next year. As adults and mature Christians, however, we can no longer do this, of course, because even though we appropriately celebrate and commemorate the birth of the Christ Child we cannot rest on our laurels because the Day of the Lord - His imminent return - is still upon us. Our Lord compels us to never, ever take Him for granted. And yet we do.

It is fascinating to read the account of John's ministry as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy because of the way the acclamation and public response are portrayed. "John ... appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the people from the WHOLE JUDEAN COUNTRYSIDE and ALL THE PEOPLE OF JERUSALEM were going out to him ..." The accounts make it sound like the entire nation all but shut down so everyone could go to the river to repent, be baptized, and thus "flee from the wrath to come" (Luke 3:7).

Advent makes this same proclamation and call to repentance as the means by which to "prepare the way of the Lord" who, according to our doctrine and theology, will certainly return; but the response even within the Church is tepid and lukewarm at best. It's just another mark on the calendar that ends December 25 after the last package from under the tree is unwrapped and tossed aside. We are unable and sometimes perhaps unwilling to see beyond that calendar date. Besides, we're already baptized in a tradition that also states "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", and the contemporary Church is being virtually overrun by the notion that there is nothing left to do except "get saved"; and once "saved", the journey is complete. Oh, there will be the so-called "C & E" Christians who will faithfully show up for Christmas and Easter Sunday services whether they want to or not, but there is no general spike in worship attendance and participation during Advent. So why the urgency now? What else is there to do? Where is the sense of urgency and anticipation which seemed to have existed during the time of John the baptizer? Has the Return of the Lord somehow become "old news"?

Maybe we would do well to consider Advent in the same way we consider a prior notice of guests coming to our homes. Who does not jump through hoops to make sure everything is "just so" before guests arrive? Or better yet: how do you prepare your home when you know your MOTHER-IN-LAW is coming?!?! Well, this changes everything! And while we can certainly believe the Lord will be far more merciful than mothers-in-law during the "inspection tour", would it not do well for us to put at least as much attention on "preparation" for the Lord's arrival as we would for some other guest - or our MOTHERS-IN-LAW??

St. Peter urges the faithful to "strive to be found by Him". The psalmist says the Lord "will speak peace ... to those who turn to Him in their hearts" (Psalm 85:8). So it seems to me the Scriptures indicate that the ones who will be "found" by the Lord are those who are found in the Last Day engaged in those means of grace by which we are actively - and not incidentally -"striving to be found" (rather than striving against one another) and "turning to Him" (rather than turning away those who need our help or those who disagree with us). We would be ill-advised to disregard the judgment of the "sheep" and the "goats" from Matthew 25:31-46, for the journey is far over.

Yet the Church universal is in a state of decline and has been for two generations. We can blame this faction or that element or this doctrinal dispute or that political issue for the decline, but if one denomination is having a problem - and they all are to one extent or another - then the Church herself is having a problem. Each is striving in its own way and within its own understanding of what it means to be actively engaged in the struggle to complete the Journey as faithfully as possible, and many within every denomination are stumbling.

Some have chosen to strike out on their own, believing (or claiming to believe) that the Church is only impeding their personal spiritual growth - or that the Church has done far more harm than good. In the end, then, it seems they do not want to be found "striving"; they only want to be found in the Last Day having been "saved" at some point in the past. It is incumbent upon the Church - that's you and me - to faithfully fulfill the Church's mission and help these many back into the sheepfold, back into the flock and away from the many "goats". It is necessary for the Church to continue to proclaim the Gospel that invites - rather than judges - and it is necessary for the Church to remind these many who have pulled away by "blaming" someone or something that the Church is weakened by their absence and the journey made much more burdensome for the many who need genuine spiritual help.

It is easy to see that patience for this coming Day of the Lord is wearing thin and the Church is losing - or has already lost - her focus by paying more attention to political issues than spiritual ones. The Church seems more intent on being socially respectable rather than doctrinally faithful and if this is so, then perhaps what Peter is challenging the Church to do is to shift her focus from the here-and-now and put the spiritual spotlight back where it belongs: on what is to come. "Regarding the patience of our Lord as salvation", according to what Peter wrote, could be construed as suggesting the Lord will NOT return to rescue His faithful or establish His Kingdom until the faithful get it right; until we prove to the Lord that HE alone is our focus, that HE alone is our salvation, that HE alone is our prayer. Until we make this choice, until we make this our priority, perhaps it is He will leave us to languish, watch, and wait for yet another 2000 years.

It is impossible and counterproductive, of course, to try and outthink the Lord and His Coming Day especially when Jesus Himself makes it clear that even HE is not privy to when this Day will occur. It is also a dangerous and spiritually disingenuous thing to proclaim or use the Last Day as a spiritual threat in any way, remembering that it is the LORD'S DAY and not our weapon of choice; much in the same way we should view and embrace the Sabbath itself as a PROMISE of spiritual restoration. This, my dear friends, is what we are waiting for. And for those "striving to be found"? This they will find - and in abundance. To His Eternal Glory, and in the Eternity of His Kingdom to Come. Amen.

Faith, football, the Media, and Tim Tebow

2011-11-30T13:45:00.001-06:00

"The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God; for it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' ... For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." 1 Corinthians 1:18-19, 21

As a church pastor and lifelong Christian (and, sad to say, part-time disciple), I must freely admit that Tim Tebow's public displays of his affection for our Lord both inspire me and make me a little uncomfortable. Tebow inspires me to be more vocal and more intentional about the faith that informs my actions and guides my thoughts. At the same time, my cynical heart is waiting for the other shoe to drop. You see, I grew up Roman Catholic. Mine was a very small parish that shared a priest with two other area parishes, and one of the other parishes provided the housing for the pastor. Needless to say, we did not see him quite as often as that one parish did. One priest did try to generate interest in a youth group in my home parish, but I do not recall that it lasted long or even went beyond boxing. And I never - NEVER - was made to feel uncomfortable in any way nor did our parish priests ever try to be alone with any of us kids. They all did their priestly duties openly and faithfully.

Imagine, then, my utter disappointment when the scandals hit the media so many years later. Imagine my extreme distress when these scandals were made public at about the time I was trying to reconcile myself with the Church after a long absence. Imagine my broken heart and utter disgust when while attending Mass at a parish in New Mexico, the parish priest had announced to the congregation that their "portion" of a settlement made in one of the abuse cases came to $$$$ (I don't recall the exact amount - in fact, I think I had an out-of-body experience while this was being announced). Though I have attended Mass here and there since that time, I had long ago aligned myself with another denomination and eventually became a pastor.

It is not for me to question Mr. Tebow's faith, and it is certainly not for me to decide whether his public displays are appropriate or genuine. In fact, a recent response Mr. Tebow made to yet another critic drove home his very point: public people don't hesitate to pay homage to spouses, parents, or other men and women who have influenced them and continue to do so. Why is it so strange to us for Tebow to devote such attention to his relationship with Lord of the Sabbath, the Savior of the world, the "Word made flesh"? Why do even church folk (or maybe it's just me) squirm a little when he makes such a public show of his faith?

Clearly the secular media do not get it. Tebow gets headlines because he is also a talented athlete in addition to being a faithful Christian. Listening to some "talking head" news show this morning, they were actually debating about whether Tebow needs to tone down his "religious rhetoric". What they obviously cannot see - or will not see, according to St. Paul's words to the Corinthians - is that there is nothing rhetorical about what Tebow does and what he believes. Thus is it not for us, the media, the NFL, or anyone else to decide whether he should "tone it down" anymore than it is anyone's business whether or not the Duggars should maybe tie some tubes and stop making babies. Isn't it funny that such matters of faith are debated by persons who do not have such a dog in the fight? Indeed are these really "issues" at all worthy of public debate?

We have to remember this is the same secular media which celebrates its freedom to slander public figures by quoting "unnamed" sources, thus avoiding the scrutiny that may likely bring them very close to charges of libel. This is the same secular media that will violate your freedoms and mine in pursuit of their freedom of press by camping out on your front lawns and harassing you and your family for a headline or a sound bite, driving you to the point of insanity (ask any celebrity). This is the same secular media which wants the world to know that a US senator might have been acting inappropriately in a men's room in an airport, but they want to make light of a professional athlete giving glory to the Lord for the success in his life.

We should expect no less from the secular world. The Cross is "foolishness", the birth of Jesus is a mythical "fairy tale", and the Day of the Lord when Christ will return is a means by which to keep the "sheeple" in line. So says a world which lives in utter darkness and celebrates chaos as order. The people of the Church, however, may look to Tebow not as a point of curiosity but as a man of faith who is excited about his love for our Lord! The faith of the contemporary Church is tepid and lukewarm at best because church membership (in very general terms, of course) has more to do with hanging out with like-minded people in a common setting. Genuine, heart-felt worship of the Lord is merely incidental to the gathering.

This is why so many Christians feel free NOT to attend worship. There is no spiritually compelling reason to be there. It is socially respectable to be a member of a local church, but it is a social curiosity to actually put all else aside in favor of every opportunity to worship in community formally and with other believers. Society would better understand our desire to fish, hunt, play golf, or watch a ball game rather than attend Sabbath worship. Society, for too many of us, makes the rules and sets the standards; and people of faith fall within those standards and willingly abides by those rules, ironically, in the name of the very grace by which they claim to have been "saved".

The other shoe may well drop on Tebow sooner or later (he is still human, after all), and the "dark world" will only celebrate the hypocrisy of faith. The people of the Church, however, would do well to remind one another that there is only One who is "good" (Matthew 19:17); and Goodness will always prevail for those who strive for it, embrace it, and actively engage in the relationship to which we are all called. We are not perfect by any means and we should not try to convince the world of darkness that we are somehow better than they who play in their own waste; we need only remind them of where our hope comes from and why we continue to look heavenward.

A Thought

2011-11-30T08:43:00.001-06:00

“He was in the world and the world was made through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” - John 1:10-11

The visions we have of the Day of the Lord, that Day when He will return to judge the world and call His own home, are big and grand and cataclysmic. “Coming in clouds”, sending out the angels, and the other apocalyptic visions from The Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel seem to make it clear that those who did not believe will be fully, completely, and suddenly convinced; and those who believed in a concept but never fully embraced the Lord as Savior of the World will discover the Truth. Advent teaches us to prepare always for that Day.

Yet Jesus also reminds us that He is already among us, and He very clearly tells us where He is and who best represents Him in the world even now: those who hunger, those who thirst, those who are naked, sick, and imprisoned (Matthew 25:35-36). These will be the manner by which the faithful will be judged as “sheep” who followed the Great Shepherd, or “goats” who made their own way. The Day of the Lord will finally and completely declare to the world those who did and did not receive Him not in a single moment but throughout our entire lives.

Remember today Whose you are. You have been claimed, and a colossal price was paid for your redemption. We must live to expect Him and so expect to live in Him.

A Thought

2011-11-29T09:38:00.001-06:00

“’Comfort, O comfort My people’, says your God. ‘Speak tenderly to [My people], and cry to [them] that [they] have served [their] term, that [their] penalty is paid, that [they] have received from the Lord’s hand double for all [their] sins.’” Isaiah 40:1-2

This was a message to the people who had endured the pain and humiliation of the Exile, that period when the people of Israel had been driven from their homeland, that period during which the Holy God had turned His back on His people after they had refused to live like His people but had chosen instead to live only for themselves. They had been punished, they had repented of their rebellion against the Lord, and so they were being sent back home according to the Lord’s Covenant.

We are reminded of the weakness of our humanity and the strength of our desires according to the flesh in such passages, but we are also reminded of the Lord’s enduring affection for His people and – most importantly – His affection for His Covenant, the Lord’s intent to see His Word endure throughout the ages. Many died in their sin, in their rebellion against the Lord. That “remnant” of the faithful which was left after the period of the Exile were the penitent few who were allowed to return home and rebuild.

We must remember that the Lord is patient with us as we are with our own children, but even His patience has limits. More than this, however, is the certain promise that His Word will endure. Those who embrace this Eternal Word will live for as long as the Word endures!

Breaking Dawn, Part 1: Team Charlie - father of the bride

2011-11-28T14:28:00.001-06:00

When the "Twilight" series hit the public by way of the books, my wife jumped in with both feet and has thoroughly enjoyed all of them. The movies which came later she also enjoyed but like almost every movie based on a book, the movie is usually somewhat of a let-down because there is nuance in the written word that cannot always be adequately expressed otherwise. This is not to say that all movies based on books are always bad, but it does usually seem to be the case that if the book really was so good the reader should not be in a big state of anticipation for the movie to "finally" come out. No matter how you slice it, it just will not be the same. The movie will never - NEVER - be better than the original book.

I have seen all the "Twilight" movies so far because my wife so enjoys them, but I am of the "old school" when it comes to vampires and werewolves. You know the old vampire: fangs, sleeping during the day in coffins, and turning into bats as the preferred means of travel (rather than running at the speed of light). And werewolves walked on their hind legs and did not completely take on the appearance of a dog; there was some element of humanness still left in them. They also did not communicate telepathically nor did they run in packs. Maybe it's evolution, maybe it's regional. Who knows? Just grant to the "Twilight" author a great deal of poetic license and latitude to tell her stories as she wishes. Who can argue with success??

I believe it was the second installment of the movie series when "Team Edward" (the vampire) and "Team Jacob" (the werewolf) came into being since "Bella" was compelled to choose between the two as her love interest. Personally I was signed on to "Team Alice" because she's cute, perky, and much friendlier than "Rosalie" (but I never got a t-shirt or a coffee mug to state my preference). All this changed, however, when the latest movie installment in the series came out and I took my wife to see it. I have since had a change of heart. I'm still a fan of "Alice" (though "Rosalie" softened up quite a bit and is clearly pro-life!) but as the father of a bride myself, I am now more appropriately aligned with "Team Charlie".

Nearly every father sooner or later will be forced to let go of his daughter. I have once and will again. Some will give their daughters over to be brides of Christ through service in the Church as nuns. Others may see their daughters hand their lives over to the Lord through missionary work as lay persons in dangerous parts of the world. Still others, most perhaps, will hand their daughters over to husbands as both will vow in the presence of the Almighty and witnesses to "forsake all others". Though they do not cease to be sons and daughters, the primary relationship necessarily shifts from parents to spouse. Mothers usually have a hard time surrendering their sons, but I think fathers have a more difficult time handing over their daughters. The reasons are many and are as specific and as coherent as the Occupy movement's beef with the 1-percenters (yes, you read sarcasm); we fathers cannot quite put our fingers on the objections, but we know they are there ... and they are real. We fathers never quite expect, as our daughters enter into this new covenant, that they will be taken completely from us. They are, though - and perhaps necessarily so.

"Charlie's" frustration in the latest movie installment was as palpable as any emotion I have ever felt. "Bella", as far as "Charlie" knew, had fallen ill on her honeymoon, and this illness had delayed her return because flying was not a good idea while "Bella" was sick. So "Charlie" only knew his beloved daughter was not well. Frustration #1: not being able to "rescue" his daughter in her time of need and being forced to trust the new husband to give her the care and consideration she requires. However, complications set in for "Charlie" when "Bella" later called to inform him that she would be going to Switzerland to a clinic. When "Charlie" blew a gasket and insisted on going to Switzerland to see about his child, "Bella" then told him it was more like a "spa" than a clinic in a vain effort to calm him down. When that did not work, she then told her dad explicitly not to meet her in Switzerland. Frustration #2 = heartbreak: daddy, you're out.

I am going to try to finish my thoughts without giving away too much of the movie (which I did NOT enjoy after that moment!). Needless to say, it was in that moment when I became aligned by no choice of my own to Team Charlie; the father of the bride who was told in no uncertain terms that he was then, and would forevermore be, a secondary figure in the new family dynamic.

It is a harsh fact of life that there can only be one primary relationship especially when it comes to married couples. Even when children come into the picture, husband and wife must tend to their own relationship intentionally and purposefully even as the new and very dependent little ones vie for attention and much-needed care. It is sad to say that if children (or any others) do become primary, the relationship between husband and wife is at risk. Early on, such relationships become even more twisted, convoluted, and challenging when parents and in-laws become overly aggressive in inserting themselves into the married relationship of their children regardless of their noble intentions. I allowed such an insertion early in my marriage almost to its detriment. Once a line had been crossed, however, I was left with only one choice: my wife; "forsaking all others". That is, if I intended to stay married to her.

So I had been forced to tell my own mother where and when to step off, but the force did not come from my wife; it was the right thing to do. It came from a situation that began to spin out of control because I tried to maintain two primary relationships. It should not have come to that, but it did because I did not take my stand early on; and like most parents, my mom did not realize she was injecting herself into the relationship inappropriately. Worse still, it was I who had allowed my mother so far into the relationship because perhaps I divulged much more information than she was entitled to. After all, I was a married man who had freely entered into a new covenant of my own, and that life was entitled to substantial privacy. I was the one compelled by Scripture to "leave father and mother and cling ONLY to his wife". I had miserably failed at that but because I lacked the sufficient maturity to do the right thing at the time, I very nearly damaged not one but TWO relationships because I failed to embrace my wife as my life. I failed to realize that two primary relationships are not possible just as Jesus teaches that it is not possible to serve two masters.

To my knowledge, my married daughter has not become a vampire (I've seen her in sun light; she does not sparkle). What I do know is that she has entered into a covenant with her husband - a covenant in which no parent is allowed. So daddy's out. I will always be the first man in her life who gave her a diamond, but I sincerely hope that in spite of all the mistakes I made that I managed to give her something much more enduring. It is not easy to let go but as much as her mother and I were trying to prepare her to be an independent and self-sufficient woman, it surely must be that the Lord was also preparing me for the inevitable - that one day she would in some tangible and decisive way actually declare her independence and move on.

So for as much as I thought I was backing out, apparently I was asserting too much. So now, like "Charlie", I'll sit by the phone, take what I can get, and be happy with it. Even when I know something may not be quite right, I have to fight the impulse to correct it for my daughter's sake because she is no longer daddy's girl; she is someone's wife. Daddy's out.

A Thought

2011-11-28T09:08:00.001-06:00

“In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: surely God has appointed the one as well as the other so that man can find out nothing that will come after him.” Ecclesiastes 7:14

Each day, whether good or bad, is appointed by the Lord Himself for the Lord’s own purposes. The author seems to suggest the days we are confronted with are intentionally designed with an element of divine mystery so that rather than getting caught up in trying to control our environments and our days as pleasing to ourselves, we might surrender a significant element of our lives and depend on the Lord for our tomorrow.

Does this mean the Lord micromanages our day-to-day, hour-to-hour activity? I don’t think so because if this were true, hunger would not exist as the Lord would “force” those with abundance to share abundantly. There would be no homelessness as the Lord would “force” the faithful to open our homes to strangers. No, there is something bigger at stake, and it is our willingness to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Lord in our daily living and our day-to-day and hour-to-hour decision-making processes.

Maybe there would be less hunger and less homelessness and fuller pews on days of worship if the people of the Lord were to truly and fully trust each day as “appointed” by the Lord, good or bad, for the Lord’s own purposes; “prosperity” so that we may have more to share rather than more to hoard or to spend for ourselves on things we do not need, and “adversity” when we get a little too full our ourselves so that we may be humbled back into the Lord’s own purposes.

Let the Lord have this day. There is something powerful in surrender especially when we realize the Lord truly wants what is best not for “me” personally or “you” personally but for all His beloved, His Holy Church.

1st Sunday of Advent - 2011

2011-11-26T21:38:00.001-06:00

Mark 13:24-37

Advent, from the Latin “adventus” which means “coming”, can be an awkward time for worship planning because many of the Christmas hymns and songs we are familiar with and love to sing speak of the "baby" Jesus, His birth, and all the joyous and hopeful emotions that wondrous event should bring. The Incarnation of the Christ is among the holiest of Holy Days on the Church's calendar - and rightly so. We think of the Almighty God, King of all creation whose face even Moses was not allowed to see, and yet this same Almighty God humbled Himself to share in our humanity through Christ so that we may dare hope to one day share in His divinity. Our journey of faith leads us to that Day.

That Day has yet to be, however. That is the Day Advent calls us to prepare for. Indeed, how much preparation do any of us put into getting ready for an event that has already taken place? How much preparation is required, for instance, in getting ready for a junior prom when one is a senior in college? How much preparation is necessary for a parade that has already passed by? How much preparation does it take to get ready for a "sweet 16" birthday party for a child who is about to turn 25? Advent compels us to remember a glorious past, of course, but Advent also calls us to something wonderful which is still ahead - and THIS, my dear friends, is what Advent calls us to prepare for - not only for the Holy Day of Christmas but far beyond!

So none of this is to say we should not always - ALWAYS - be mindful of that Glorious Day of Incarnation when the Lord was revealed to us in such a humble way, but that event will not repeat itself except by how we reveal our own faith and joy to the world by what we do as a testament of what He did.

So - we are called to look ahead for what is to come. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "... in every way you have been enriched in Him, in speech and knowledge of every kind - just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you - so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:5-8).

The "Day of the Lord", clearly beyond the birth of the Holy Child, the Day which has yet to be revealed but is just beyond the horizon of our journey, an "end" we cannot see and cannot know - and yet we dare to hope as we are commanded by Christ to that "End" to "keep awake!" In other words, WATCH FOR IT and EXPECT IT as if it will be tomorrow – because that time is imminent!

The speech Mark shares with us follows Jesus' departure from the Temple. As Jesus and His disciples were leaving the Temple, we are told that "one of His disciples said to Him, 'Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!' [This disciple was surely amazed at the sheer size of the stones themselves, not to mention the structures these stones created! That, or he was trying to see how impressed Jesus might be.] And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down" (Mark 13:1b-2). In other words, as great and as magnificent as they were they would not last, so don’t get too attached – and don’t be too impressed. But the Temple must also not be left standing as if it were a meaningless monument.

It occurs to me that even as we look at what is right in front of us, we can often be trapped in the past by the accomplishment of what we see. This particular disciple was awed by an accomplishment of man, but he seemed to be confused with the difference between “the end” and “the means” to an end. We can only imagine the colossal structure the Temple must have been just as we see great buildings even today, including some really magnificent churches. Sometimes when passing through Little Rock, I take a gander at that great, big, impressive Immanuel Baptist Church which sits right off the interstate in Little Rock or the equally impressive Pentecostal Church that sits right off the interstate in North Little Rock and wonder at the resources spent to make those churches possible as I marvel at the structures. And yet “not one stone will be left upon another”.

Like many who have expressed such sentiments, I also cannot help but to think of the hunger and homeless issues that could have been addressed with what was spent - and continues to be spent - for maintenance and utilities alone! At the same time, our human minds can think of no better way to show the world the majesty of our Lord and create a place worthy of Him because when we enter into the sanctuary of the Lord, "awe" should be foremost in our minds and hearts. Nothing less will do.

Yet Jesus seems to indicate there is a risk for us with such structures, these man-made monuments to our own desires and visions even if the intentions are noble; just as there is great risk when we continue to engage in such things and practices that celebrate the past instead of anticipating the future; seeing the past as “the end” rather than as a “means” to our future – learning from history so that we may continue to journey forward. It is as Helen Keller once expressed so well: "When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look back so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened [ahead of] us."

We tend to get stuck in “remembrance” in spite of Jesus Himself calling us forward into an active state of "anticipation"! But how can we see and actively anticipate the future if we are stuck in the present? Or worse - in the past? How can we actively anticipate and celebrate the coming of the Lord - that Day which has yet to be - if we do nothing in preparation for that Great Day but instead choose to spend time in the moment, in the present while remembering the past? How do we give due diligence to all that Advent calls us into if we allow it to end according to a date on a calendar?

Throughout this great lesson Mark records for us, Jesus does nothing to glorify the past – but He does use the past to challenge us to move forward! And it should not escape our notice that He does not mention His birth as a festival of any kind - OR - an event to be embraced! Yet we do celebrate that Glorious Day because we recognize the HOPE that has been given to all of humanity in His birth: "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:17). So we were given that great gift of HOPE by the Incarnation, that time when we would actually come face-to-face with Heaven's Glorious Prince. And as He walked among us and taught us and healed us and blessed us and fed us, He did so to strengthen and equip us for the Journey which is ahead – not exclusively as a remembrance or celebration of the past.

If the theme of the first Sunday of Advent is “hope”, then our hope must extend beyond “hoping” this Christmas will be better than the last one. Our “hope” must carry us beyond December 25 because Christ our Hope calls and leads us beyond December 25. Our “hope”, dear friends”, is the “hope” of that which is yet to be revealed. It is the “hope” that heals and encourages and feeds and teaches and motivates. The Hope of the Holy Church is not behind us – God save us from our past! He is ahead of us, leading the faithful to His Glorious Future … into Eternal Life.

A Thought

2011-11-15T08:26:00.001-06:00

“I wept because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. But one of the elders said to me, ‘Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.’” Revelation 5:4-5

Maybe it is that the vision of St. John serves to remind us not only that “these things must come to pass” but to also help us to remember where our hope truly is; that in spite of the world around us that seems to be coming apart at the seams as more and more people – perhaps including our own children – are walking away from the Lord and His Church, He alone is still the only One worthy to reveal the Last Day … and by His decree and His unwavering and uncompromising love for us will still step up in our place and do what we were – and are – unable to do for ourselves.

Our absence is not excused by any means! Rather, we are shown that the Lord’s own purposes will prevail in spite of us … or perhaps because of us. Make no mistake, however; the Lord will overcome and those who endure “to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13).

Blessings,

Michael

Fear, Love, and Faith

2011-11-13T16:39:00.001-06:00

Matthew 25:14-30

John Wesley, in his sermon "The Nature of Enthusiasm", had this to say: "Beware of imagining you shall obtain the end without using the means conducive to it. God can give the end without any means at all; but you have no reason to think He will. Therefore constantly and carefully use all those means which he has appointed to be the ordinary channels of His grace. Use every means which either reason or Scripture recommends, as conducive ... to the obtaining or the increasing any of the gifts of God. Thus expect a daily growth in that pure and holy religion which is ... the 'wisdom' of God and the 'power' of God."

In patriotic American language, then, the saying is sure: "Freedom is not free". There is always a 'cost' related to that which we receive whether it is the "blessings of liberty", "free" health care, or "free" samples of a particular product; there is always a 'price' to be paid - it is only a matter of who actually pays the price. More than this, however, is the word "free" in absolute terms: we are a freed people, but I don't think we really understand what that means - AND - how it relates to our connection to our God. I also think we are never truly "free" - I submit that we are now, always have been, and always will be beholden to something either imposed or freely - if absent-mindedly - entered into.

When John Wesley relates to the "wisdom of God" and the "power of God", he must surely use these terms in their appropriate biblical context: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;” Psalm 111:10 ... and ... “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). Everything we have and everything we are is devoted to that love - OR - it is not. There is no gray area, and there is no in-between.

In the 16th century Machiavelli asked this question in a piece he wrote that still is looked upon today in political philosophy and governing a people: "Is it better to be feared ... or to be loved?" He was asking the question in terms of what it would take for a prince to govern effectively. Italy was being overrun by barbarians; and popes, kings, and queens were battling for supremacy in the various regions. Based on his political and military experiences and observations, he was writing about what it would take in order for a prince to gain control - AND - maintain control. “A prince should wish for both [fear and love]”, he says, “but because it is difficult to reconcile [the two], I hold that it is much more secure to be feared than to be loved if one of them must be given up.”

This leads us to the Parable of the Talents ... and particularly the third slave who had what seemed to be the appropriate level of "fear". In fact he says so: "I was afraid". But what we can also see as clearly is that the third slave's "fear" of his lord all but paralyzed him so much so that he was unable to fully engage in a relationship with his master. There was only one element of his master's being that he was familiar with: "Master, I knew you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not scatter seed ..." So because of his ignorance of his master's overall being, he failed to do with what little had been entrusted to his care what his master would have expected from him.

The first two slaves did not have that problem. They took what was given to them - "each according to his ability" - and they made the most of it. It should be notable, as well, that the second slave did not begrudge the reality that the first slave had been given more. The second slave did not look around to see who had what or who had more; he was, like the first slave, entirely about the business of his master as it pertained to him and the master's expectations from him. Because of his faithfulness, then, his reward was equal to that of the first slave: "Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, so I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master."

So what? We are not 'slaves'. We are not 'owned' by anyone or anything. Or are we? Is the 'freedom' we perceive to be our own for real, or is it only a self-indulgent illusion? And within this concept of 'freedom', be it spiritual or "Amur-kin", can we really appreciate "fear" in its truest sense - AND - can we embrace "love" in the fullness of its terms? The short answer is - NO, we cannot; and the reason we cannot is because our knowledge of our Master tends to be one-dimensional. That is to say, we can more reasonably appreciate only one attribute of the Master's being because we pick and choose what we will and will not do, think, or believe. It doesn't seem to matter that it is written right before us in Scripture. If "it" does not fit into our lives, personal preferences, and conditions of culture, we dismiss it in the name of "grace".

The same cannot be said of the Master's knowledge of us, and Jesus seems to make this point as well when He points out that before the master left on his journey he entrusted to his slaves what was precious to him - the talents - "to each according to his ability". So the master knew these slaves well enough that he knew who could be entrusted with more and who should not be so overburdened. There is no indication the master thought less of the slave who received only one talent; he only gave him what he was confident the third slave could handle.

Now in order to fully appreciate the utter failure of the third slave, we should understand the "talent" as a unit of currency. It was said to be equal to roughly 6000 denarii; a single denarius was about equal to a day's wage for the typical worker. So even though the third slave got only "one" talent, we need to appreciate the contextual reality of the enormous sum he had been entrusted with. Though it was less than the others, the one talent nevertheless required the utmost "respect".

How does this translate to us? Clearly we can see that Jesus is referring to His eventual Ascension into Heaven - and inevitable return. Once He was to leave this earth, He would entrust to His followers - those who claimed to "love" Him - something of immeasurable value; something from which the Lord will expect a reasonable return ... and notice this in today's monetary terms. If we could not somehow double our Master's investment according to what has been entrusted to our care, He would be ok with our handing it over to the bank where it would draw "interest". Not much in terms of what we know today of a simple savings account return, but it is a return nonetheless. It is certainly better than nothing!

We cannot forget Jesus' restoration of Peter as recorded in John 21. Recall that Peter had failed Jesus in His final hours on this earth. The last Jesus had seen of Peter involved Peter cursing and denying his relationship with Jesus, and the last Peter had seen of Jesus was His being handed over in shackles like a common criminal. When perhaps Jesus needed Peter the most, Peter failed. And then he fled.

So the Resurrected Christ is sitting on the shore after Peter and the others had had a bad night of fishing. Jesus instructed them to cast the net on the "right side" of the boat, "and they were not able to draw the net in because of the multitude of fish". Once they all realized Who this was standing on the shore, Peter jumped into the sea in his haste to hurry and get to Jesus! The others, of course, brought the boat and the net full of fish in.

After they ate, Jesus then posed His question to Peter: "Do you love Me?" Peter says yes, of course, and Jesus instructs him to "feed My lambs", "tend My sheep", and the third time Jesus asks Peter if he loves the Lord, Jesus says, "feed My sheep". Through this we can see the "rubber meeting the road"; that is, Peter is being handed his measure of "talent". He is being told specifically - and yet in non-specific terms - what is to be expected of him in the Lord's absence.

So it is not enough to merely say "I love you, Lord" and feel that love only in terms of what we can expect in return - Peter obviously needed to be absolved of his failure during Jesus' trial and was willing to do anything to assuage his guilt. There is a necessary element of "fear" involved - by what "fear" compels us to do in terms of "respect". He is the Lord, the Almighty. He is the Prince of Heaven itself, and He will return one day to claim His own. And when that Day comes - not "if" - there will be a reckoning. And the simple account is going to be in terms of whether we "loved" the Lord enough to "respect" His command to "feed" and "tend" His sheep, His flock with the "talents" entrusted to our care.

Peter's accounting of what had been entrusted to him will be the Church itself. What will be ours?

Abortion: the moral poverty

2011-11-11T19:55:00.001-06:00

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." (Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)

As American society continues to crumble as it searches for its moral footing, as the Church struggles to be relevant within this disorder, and as we watch violence perpetuate itself in the streets amongst our young people, one cannot help but to wonder if perhaps we have imparted to the next generation the relative if questionable value of human life. Our culture has come to embrace the practice of abortion as a "choice", a "right", or even a "necessary evil" as seems implied in the United Methodist Book of Discipline: "The beginning and ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence ... Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child. We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion ..." (¶ 161J). In other words, the United Methodist Church advocates, by its own chosen language, that by human decree it sometimes becomes necessary to violate these “God-given boundaries” and intentionally and deliberately terminate the life of one in order to preserve the life of another.

We cannot make a moral claim to be “equally bound” to respect the mother’s life as well as the life of the unborn child if we would advocate for the willful destruction of that unborn child ostensibly for the sake of the mother. Yet few would reasonably presume to be in a woman's difficult emotional position who is experiencing a high-risk pregnancy and whose learned and trusted doctor has advised that termination of the pregnancy would be in her own best interests. We also must not neglect the reality of the cultural conditioning which has reduced the unborn child - since 1973 when Roe v Wade became the “law of the land” - to the clinical, less-than-human status of “fetus” which has successfully removed the human element from such profound moral decisions about the value of human life and places a higher value on “viability”; “usefulness”. This moral dilemma becomes even more acute when this same mother already has young children who are equally dependent upon her for their well-being.

The short and simple answer is, of course, that "the beginning and ending of life are ... [exclusively] God-given boundaries" (UMBoD, ¶161J), boundaries we dare not presume to cross. Yet we do not seem to recognize that “God-given” boundary in Protestant theology within the social and cultural context, and particularly in Methodism, when we allow for ourselves political and social solutions to moral if medical problems. We have not only violated these “God-given” boundaries, but we have also set up camp in a realm where we clearly do not belong and to which we have clearly not been appointed, in spite of our stated belief in such boundaries to the point of such a despicable act more commonly referred to as "partial birth abortion", sometimes deemed medically necessary, a “necessary evil” in some circles. In such enculturated practices we have approached new boundaries such as stem cell therapy, biomedical research, and human cloning to the point that we have diminished the "sanctity" and "sacred worth" of every human person and have made human life of no more value than what is relative to our own well-being, “convenience”, and affordability. In such morally questionable contexts, life becomes not as much a divine gift than a human commodity to be used and consequently discarded when no longer of any use to us. Mother Teresa’s words in 1994 could not have been more prophetic.

Such dilemmas have become problematic for the Protestant church when on the one hand life is proclaimed as “God-given” with its inherent “boundaries”, and then on the other hand the Church declares for itself its own circumstantial and ambiguous boundaries that are in direct contradiction to a stated if conflicted doctrine that is presumably set within a biblical and traditional context. Once the church departs from the divine law by which it is governed and seeks political solutions according to social demands, it enters into the very human and cultural context from which it is called to be set apart (Luke 2:34) and in so doing, surrenders its moral authority to speak on behalf of the divine law.

Rachels claims scriptural ambiguity in its “supposed” biblical prohibition against abortion and suggests only a conservative, rather than universal, argument could be made by such passages as the prophet Jeremiah’s commission within “God-given boundaries” (Rachels, ppg 58-59). Rachels argues that Jeremiah is only “asserting his authority as a prophet” and that “the sanctity of fetal life is not discussed” (pg 59). If the statement stands alone, Rachels has a point, albeit a narrow one. This argument falls apart in a much broader context however, when we consider the several biblical passages in which the Holy God does not show “partiality” (Acts 10:34). We also cannot proclaim a universal faith in which every life is of equally sacred value, assuming Rachels’ inference that Jeremiah was of greater value than any other who is not so divinely appointed in spite of the psalmist’s claim that even he was “knit together in [his] mother’s womb … fearfully and wonderfully made” by God (Psalm 139). Rachels’ contention places relative value on human life according to human perceptions of divine usefulness and ignores the broader claim of St. Paul that human beings are universally endowed with various gifts by which the Body of Christ itself is made whole (1 Corinthians 12:22-23).

Lovin attempts to do away with moral ambiguity by his use of extrabiblical writers as St. Augustine who maintained there are moral absolutes in the choices we make and the context in which we make them: “two cities created by two kinds of love; one in which is self-love and ultimately contempt for God, and the other driven by love of God to the point of contempt for one’s own life” (Lovin, pg 13). This extrabiblical reference leads us to a much broader understanding of Jesus’ teaching of which choice actually leads to enduring life rather than to death. St. Augustine and other church fathers did not claim their own unique authority to make up new rules or establish new standards; rather they claimed their own interpretations often as they were spiritually led but within a biblical and perhaps historic context (Augustine, sermon 93.5).

In this, then, we can reasonably use the Didache as extrabiblical literature and its specific prohibition against abortion and infanticide (Didache 2:2) as the Roman Catholic Church does. This literature has been dated as early as the first century and as late as the second century and has been traditionally attributed to the apostles and their teachings. We can reasonably embrace the validity of these writings within a consistent standard for the same reason we can reasonably embrace The Gospel according to St. Mark as having been actually penned by a disciple of St. Peter’s rather than written as a first-hand account. Scholars are divided on the authorship of many books of the Bible as well as the Didache, but such contemporary and perhaps enculturated division does not necessarily diminish the value or the validity of what is written. Tradition questions whether Moses actually “wrote” the Pentateuch, but we do not question the spiritual wisdom of those books traditionally attributed to Moses. We learn from generation to generation as Moses required, and we pass on what we have learned; not what we have made up to suit our own purposes (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Humane Vitae, maintains this same general and traditional order in that the Church has a moral responsibility to “guard and interpret” rather than to “arbitrate” the moral and divine law since these laws were imparted by divine means rather than devised by human measure (II, para 18). St. Paul expresses the same concerns of liberty by which limits must be discerned between what is “right” and what is “lawful” (1 Corinthians 10:23). Humanity has within its grasp the power to lord over life and death, and the value of life cannot be determined by social or cultural standards which inevitably shift from generation to generation. All life is “of sacred worth” – or - of no value at all outside of cultural relativity, human standards being arbitrary and conditional at best. Rachels’ point is well taken: “Every generation reinterprets Scripture to support its favored moral views” (Rachels, pg 61), but such a statement only affirms the reality of St. Paul’s contention that just because we can legally do something does not grant to us the moral authority to do it.

Divine law as understood by the historical and traditional Church is difficult to define because of the obvious distinctions and seeming contradictions between the Old Testament and the New. The “old” law, for instance, prohibits homosexual conduct which the traditional Church continues to uphold. Yet this same “old” law also prohibits the consumption of pork, a staple at many a church potluck table! We can argue about the finer points of the kosher law and the Law in general; however, we should not make the same mistake in interpreting the moral, social, ethical, and sacred value of every human life. Nor should we find ourselves bound by the circular and impossible arguments of when an unborn child becomes a “person” or at what point in human development a “cluster of cells” becomes something worthy of divine respect.

In such fruitless arguments are contained those “boundaries” which exist for a unique and divine purpose, “boundaries” we dare not cross (but insist upon doing) lest we find ourselves trying to redefine impossible boundaries by human standards according to a fickle human race that cannot know from one generation to the next what is good except by what has been traditionally and universally upheld as good: human life. It is the one moral standard that is as well established as the divine law itself. It is when we become confused by the “two cities” of St. Augustine and our part in either that moral standards become ambiguous and our God and the divine law become more of a concept than a reality.

Though Roe v Wade was issued a ruling by which “the right to terminate a pregnancy is a matter of personal decision and is a privacy issue protected by the Constitution” (Hamilton, pg 114), the social upheaval at the time and the very public debate about the Court’s decision required the Church to take a stand. The Roman Catholic Church affirmed its teaching that life is divinely ordained and refused to “adjust” its doctrine to satisfy the “earthly city”, standing firm from the Didache and Holy Scripture to John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae (1995). The Protestant Church has been less than vocal or consistent in its wavering social contexts by which it has attempted to assuage those who demanded such unfettered “freedom” to do with their bodies as they pleased and please God at the same time. The obvious result is a Church lacking any semblance of integrity, no moral foundation upon which to stand, and no doctrinal direction to follow – all because we by word and deed question the value of human life. If St. Augustine is correct in his spiritual assessment, we United Methodists have built a “summer home” in the city of God in which to relax and restore our souls. We live and work, however, in the other “city” and continue to struggle to be relevant both to God and to humanity.

Hamilton references Genesis 9:5-6 in making it “clear that ending a human life is not within our jurisdiction. This is God’s domain” (Hamilton, pg 119). Such a stance is consistent with historic Church teachings and consistent with what is written in our “Discipline” and other sources we neglect to our detriment. Before we can be a moral compass for the society we are called to witness to and lead, we must first decide for ourselves whether we believe what is written and exactly whom we serve. Once this is determined, then and only then can we decide by which moral standard we will stand.

A Thought

2011-11-02T08:26:00.002-05:00

“I know you are Abraham’s descendents, but you seek to kill Me because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen from My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” John 8:37-38

In the text Jesus is speaking to “those Jews who believed Him” (John 8:31), but there is apparently an element of what Jesus is saying that is getting past them because they continue to maintain and defend their lineage to Abraham and their means of self-justification. I think maybe there is a clue in verse 33 when the Jews said, in responding to Jesus’ statement that “the truth will set you free”: “We have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, ‘You will be made free?’”

It is the curse of “cultural conditioning”. Jesus was pointing out to the Jews that they are not acting as Abraham’s children: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham”. Abraham’s “works” were in accordance with the Word of the Lord. He obeyed and he had the faith sufficient to move when the Lord said to move. Remember that Abraham left his home land strictly on the word of the Lord. For humans, what Abraham did made no sense at all!

Now Jesus is standing before the people as “the Word”, and they do not believe Him for this simple reason: Jesus is calling them to go against the current of “cultural conditioning”. He is challenging us all to evaluate our words and deeds not in accordance with what we have been taught from generation to generation – or even according to what our neighbors do and think. Jesus is challenging everyone – then and now – to measure life according to The Word; Holy Scripture, and not according to how we have been conditioned by a largely secular culture (which often even exists within the Church!) that seeks to justify itself only by its own moral and ethical standards due to willful ignorance of what is written in Scripture.

Scripture was written as the means by which the Lord has revealed Himself to us and continues to speak to us today. We must not get lost in the culture, for it is not this culture that will be saved on the last Day. It will be only those who endure to the very end.

A Thought

2011-10-25T09:09:00.001-05:00

“Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors … for if you forgive others, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” Matthew 6:12, 14

Forgiving someone who has wronged us is probably the very hardest thing to do. Jesus clearly teaches it is necessary, but there is surely more to it than to simply trade one blessing for another. Surely His admonition is much more than just a warning.

I think because we often find ourselves often so hopelessly busy, we don’t have time to think – I mean really think, contemplate, pray, reflect. Often when we sit still, we only allow ourselves to sit and stew about something or someone that did not quite go our way. We are either stuck in the past when the offense took place, or we are stuck in the present by refusing to let go. We are practical people, so we know what “is”; but because we do not allow ourselves real time to sit and reflect, we cannot comprehend what “will be” … or even what “can be”. We are stuck in what “is”. And for Kingdom people, this is unacceptable because where we are and what we are is NOT who we are!

Take time to reflect on what can be, and get unstuck from the hopeless rut of where we are because where we are is a truth but only a chapter in a yet-to-be-revealed story. For a people redeemed, the best is yet to come!!

A Thought

2011-10-24T08:36:00.000-05:00

“There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible.” Mother Teresa

This is part of an evaluation the Church as a whole – and each individual church – must undergo in evaluating the things it does. Whether it is music in worship, potlucks, or anything in between, each work as a ministry of the church must be evaluated according to what we intend to accomplish. Do we do it (whatever “it” is) because we’ve “always done it”? Do we do it because we don’t mind it so much? Do we do it because we enjoy doing it? Or do we earnestly do what we do with the greatest anticipation that what we do will be pleasing in the Lord’s own sight?

Maybe today we can deny a next step until we can honestly evaluate whether that step will reveal the glory of the Lord to our neighbor – or if the steps we may choose are even necessary in the first place.

Integrity: the Church's first - and last - Leg

2011-10-23T08:30:00.000-05:00

Psalm 90:13-17
1 Thessalonians 2:1-8
Matthew 22:34-46

"It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction" (Luke 2:34). She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of [humanity]." Pope Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae"; translated, "Of Human Life"

This encyclical was written in 1968 by then-Pope Paul VI who was answering the issue of artificial birth control and the Church's traditional stance and teaching which, incidentally goes back to the Didache believed to have been composed sometime between 50AD and 130AD. Didache is translated "Teaching" and is believed to be a reflection of the apostles' teachings if not their actual writings (scholars are in dispute). Needless to say, most Catholics probably did not read or even know about the encyclical unless they heard it referenced at Mass; and I think it safe to say many Catholics who did know of the encyclical disregarded the pope's - and ultimately the Church's - stance on artificial birth control. For Protestants, of course, the encyclical was not then nor now even an issue.

What caught my eye as I was reading the encyclical for a paper in one of my classes was the quoted reference to "a sign of contradiction". The pope used Luke 2:34 as his justification for the statement that is set to define the Church as the Body of Christ in a society that will largely reject Christ Himself by rejecting His Holy Church. And the Church is rejected when the Church's historic teachings, however difficult and counter-cultural they may be, are rejected. The Church was not called forth to be a friend to human culture, but rather to serve instead as a "sanctuary" and respite from human culture, as guardian of the Gospel, and as a reflection of the spiritual reality of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Luke 2 is the story of Simeon's blessing of the Messiah when Jesus was presented to the Lord at the Temple by Joseph and Mary. Jesus is, as expressed by Simeon, the long-awaited "revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of Your people Israel" (vs 32). The rest reads as follows: "Joseph and [Mary] marveled at those things which were spoken of [Jesus]. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, 'Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed".

Of course Simeon was not talking about birth control; neither am I. His prophetic statement was much more profound than any single social issue we deal with today; social issues which have split the Church and society in general right down the middle. Yet we cannot ignore the far-reaching implication of Simeon's prophetic statement within the context of Paul VI's interpretation of what he meant when he referred to the Holy Child as a "sign which will be spoken against", "a sign of contradiction".

Yet for years people have walked away from the Church - in all denominations - for a variety of reasons, most of them probably personal disputes with religious teachings that interfered with cultural conditioning, personal choices, and personal preferences. True enough, it can be said that through the ages the Church as a whole has probably been a little more rigid that necessary, but we could not possibly know this except maybe on a case-by-case basis; but there again is a lack of consistent standard but plenty of opinion and individual preference and interpretation. Since such an evaluation is impossible by human standards, then, we have to look deeper and try to understand Simeon's reference, the pope's reference, and of course Jesus' own reference to the "greatest commandment" and what each of these can mean to us today.

Simeon's proclamation would not dare to be rejected out of hand by Christians in general because, as is so often said, "it's in the Bible", and thus considered to be sacrosanct and untouchable. Paul VI's statement must not be rejected by Protestants merely on the basis of his status as pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church because whether we know it or not, we continue today to embrace the beliefs and practices of the so-called Catholic "church fathers" because their teachings, in no small measure, inform Catholic and Protestant theology and doctrine today. It is no insignificant thing to realize that the writings of these men - and women - have endured and will endure beyond the centuries they have so far endured. These will still be referenced long after this world has forgotten about Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Beth Moore, and Mike Daniel.

It is noteworthy within such contexts, contrasts, and comparisons, however, that contemporary preachers, pastors, and bishops are busy trying to find ways to reconnect the Church to the secular social reality ostensibly without compromising the Church's moral principles, a nearly impossible task that would ultimately compromise the moral integrity and authority of the Church. And if integrity is in fact the "first and last leg" of the Church and this "leg" is taken away, the Church is left vulnerable to the whims and wiles of a fickle human culture that often cannot tell whether it is coming or going.

My guess is that Jesus threw the Pharisees and the Sadducees off by His answer to their very simple question. My guess is that they were expecting something along the lines of a "great" commandment being one of what we consider to be the more familiar "Ten", one of the "don'ts"; i.e., "don't do this", "don't do that". Instead they got the very broad and all-encompassing "love the Lord your God with everything you have and with everything you are". "This is the greatest and first commandment." (vs 38).

Sounds easy, doesn't it? Love the Lord first before anything and anyone. Indeed. However, contemporary human culture hasn't the first clue what "love" really means, not biblical love, not "agape" love. We know infatuation. We know fondness. We know reciprocity as in getting something for something - like bartering. We know what suits our personal preferences, and we know where to go to get whatever it is we want. And sometimes we will go out of our way and disregard everything else in favor of that thing, whatever it may be. And that, dear friends, is "love". That is what the Bible means, but we do not know "love" if our "fondness" or "infatuation" is directed only at something or someone from whom we expect something in return. The truth is we love what we can get, but we are unwilling to love if there is nothing in it for our own benefit.

Our children do not understand that our love for them, which is real, will sometimes require that we take a firm hand to them. We do not allow our children to run helter-skelter all over creation and do as they please when they please because we know to be so negligent is not "love" - it's laziness. We stand firm with our children in teaching them right from wrong, and we know there are some things that are always wrong, no matter what kind of spin we put on it.

Taking innocent human life is always going to be wrong. Abusing a child is always going to be wrong. Taking what does not belong to us is always going to be wrong. These are but a few of the "absolute" moral codes upon which the religious and non-religious alike will always agree. It's when the "spin" enters into the moral discussion that we then begin to take liberties in efforts to justify our personal beliefs in contradiction to centuries of historic Church teachings, centuries of consistent integrity that is challenged when we find ourselves in the unique position of personally disagreeing which may be, more often than not, a matter of not fully understanding why the Church teaches this or that. And we don't understand because we do not bother to ask nor study. It is much easier to make our own rules and establish our own boundaries and perhaps justify ourselves and our behavior by simply saying, "Well, at least I didn't kill anyone".

This is when we find ourselves dancing on the edge of a cliff within the context of the "greatest commandment". This is when we find ourselves hopelessly caught between two paradigms; that of the Church and that of the dominant secular culture. And we are hopelessly so trapped because Jesus is emphatic about another moral absolute: it is impossible to serve two masters. He does not suggest it may be "difficult" or "unlikely"; He says "impossible".

Jesus removed the conflict between these two standards and broke all ties in the very face of evil itself when He was challenged by the evil one: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Mt 4:10). This paradigm, this standard is the one and only leg of integrity upon which the Church can - and must - stand. Everything we are and everything we do must necessarily be measured only in terms of whether the divine law of the Lord is foremost in our minds and hearts because of the choices we make - or - if the focus is only on us and what we love and choose for ourselves.

From the very beginning the Church - the Christ - has been set to be a "sign which will be spoken against", "a sign of contradiction" because the reality of this world and the future reality of the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be reconciled except by complete submission of one to the other. So it is by the choices we make not as individual persons but as a people of faith "whom we will serve", whom we truly "love". There is no middle ground and there can be no compromise lest we jeopardize that "first love" which redeemed us and made us whole and holy. But if we find ourselves seeking to make a deal, searching for "middle ground", or seeking compromise, we will most likely find - as was shown to us in the wilderness - that the only one willing to "make a deal" ... is the devil himself.

A Thought

2011-10-20T08:49:00.002-05:00

“He who sows sparingly will reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.” 2 Corinthians 9:6

One of the biggest mistakes we can make is in reading such passages only in terms of dollars and cents because to put a financial price tag on such passages puts a limit on what even the poorest among us can “sow”; and this violates the universality of the Gospel of the Lord. Especially in this challenging economy, there are many who are afraid of losing their jobs or are still searching for a job. These and so many others come to believe they have little to spare and, thus, very little to offer. NOT TRUE! For the true gift comes from within.

Yes, those who have money should give freely and generously, “not grudgingly or of necessity” (2 Cor 9:7), but we must never come to believe we can “buy” our way into blessings or out of judgment. Our Lord is not for sale, and He does not negotiate! What we have is not what we possess; rather, what we have is who we are – and that is what our Lord wants: us. All of us. Rich and poor alike, we hold nothing back from His grace because He holds no grace back from His faithful.

A Thought

2011-10-17T15:37:00.000-05:00

“Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” 2 Corinthians 4:17-18

“Oh, when will it all end???” We ask ourselves as we are pulled and pushed in so many different directions for so many different persons in our lives when there will ever be time for us to just sit quietly. When will someone do for us all that we’ve done for them?? When is it MY time??

This is when it is important to learn something from cultures different from our own. The Amish, for instance, don’t seem to have such problems as we have; and their world is not so overwhelmed that they cannot – or will not – stop and take time for sanctuary, for quiet, for respite, for Sabbath. And the entire community pitches in whenever a neighbor is in need of special care because it is not one person’s “job” – it is the community’s “privilege” to be able and willing to serve. It is what distinguishes the people of the Lord from the rest of the world that is running in too many different directions trying to please too many different people and trying to do too many different things. It is not unlike a dog that chases its own tail; he’s having a good time doing it, but in the end he’s the only one that gets bit! What is funnier still is that when the dog does finally catch his tail, he seems not to realize that he is the source of his own pain!

It is ok to enjoy the pleasures of the natural world and it is certainly ok to enjoy our loved ones; but not to the exclusion of those who need us. For our faith calls us to look beyond what is right in front of us, and our religion reminds us that we are even now in the midst of our eternity – for people of faith shall never taste death! So let us learn to focus on the things that matter, the things that endure. And let us learn to embrace our faith communities in which we all “bear one another’s burdens” so that no single person is so overwhelmed.

We are people of eternity. We endure because our faith sustains us beyond the moment … for we know the moment will pass into the next.

A Place for everything ...

2011-10-16T17:35:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy 8:11-20
Matthew 22:15-22

"Everything we have is a gift from the Lord. What we do with what we have is our gift to the Lord."

I have no idea who coined this phrase, but it makes a good point. Whether we are given much or not-so-much by human standards and terms, we are equally entrusted with certain treasures and gifts that are useful for the Kingdom of Heaven to the same purpose for which Jesus called forth His disciples: "You did not choose Me; I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last" (John 15:16). In other words, fruit from good seed that will reproduce.

More to Jesus' point in Matthew's story, however, it might be more appropriate to say "everything we ARE is a gift" rather than to say "everything we have" because "to have" implies sole custody and personal ownership rather than "faithful stewardship". "To have" comes dangerously close to suggesting that the so-called "have-not's" are not so valuable in the eyes of our Lord. A disciple of Christ who recognizes that we are "nothing" apart from the Lord must surely realize that anything we "have" is at our disposal but to a much greater end than merely pleasure and comfort of self. The very same is equally true of those who have "not so much". The value, then, is in who we ARE - not in what we HAVE.

The question that is put upon Jesus, however, is a question we face daily not only in taxes we must pay on all levels but in choices we make each day toward what we do with what we "have" - or with who we "are" ... and for what reason; that is, what we expect to come from the choices we make. It is reasonable to suggest, then, that more often than not we make choices based not on what Scriptures teach us but rather based on our own human experiences and desires. We consider what we know to be true according to our experiences, what will likely work, what will come of the decision we make, and how such a decision will personally benefit us and further our own personal goals. It is what we do because, quite frankly, it better defines who we actually are ... and ignores or denies who we can be.

I've been asked before why the lectionary calendar does not appropriate this passage to be read on or about April 15, the drop-dead date the IRS puts on us to pay our taxes ... or else! It is a fair question, of course, but it completely misses the point Jesus needed to make beyond simply putting the Pharisees or their political allies, the Herodians, in their place. There is much more to this encounter than tax day or even money. It is entirely about "being" rather than "doing".

Everything we have and everything we are within the Covenant of the Lord has already been claimed and fully paid for in advance just as it is written in Psalm 24:1 - "The earth is the Lord's , and all its fullness" - but what we choose to do with who we are and what we have each day of our lives is not unlike the commitment we make at Confirmation or when we are baptized as older children and adults, assuming we were not baptized as infants. We make a statement each time we come forward to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, and we make a similar statement each time we are given an opportunity to offer our gifts to the Lord during the Offertory.

Where we tend to go wrong, however, is whenever we compartmentalize our faith according to religious and non-religious ideals. We fail to realize that the very same choice we make at Confirmation in church is the very same choice and statement we make in the check-out line at the store. We actually believe, judging by our actions, that there are parts of our lives we believe to be uniquely our own. And this, I think, is the point Jesus is making.

Of course the Pharisees and the Herodians are trying to trick Jesus with what they believed to be a trick question. There is also a more sinister element at play in this encounter; the very unholy alliance between the religious Pharisees and the secular Herodians. Up to this point I think it fair to say the Pharisees, the chief priests, the scribes, and the Sadducees have used every religious trick in the book they could think of to counter the overwhelming popularity of Jesus; popularity that threatens their perceived authority in what they believe to be their own unique territory; things they "have" for their own use. Having failed so miserably, then, they must try another angle. To do this, they needed a new ally, ironically an ally they actually despised: the Roman political authority.

Judah's king Ahaz faced a similar dilemma and made the same mistake (Isaiah 7). He was assured by the Lord through the prophet Isaiah that Ephraim's evil intent to invade and destroy Judah would not stand, and Ahaz was specifically warned to trust the Lord in this: "If you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all" (Is 7:9). Rather than to trust the Lord alone, Ahaz reached out to other military and political alliances with which to counter the threat from the north. Ahaz had a chance to save Judah "by faith". Instead, he became only one more stone in Judah's shoe that would hobble - rather than save - the nation of YHWH.

I suppose it was as true for Ahaz then as it is for us now. There is a time and a place for religion. There is a time to pray, and there is a time to play. There is a time to trust, and there is a time to take action. All rational and perfectly logical. In our minds, our consciences inform us of what we should do and when we should do it. It all seems to come so easily, so instinctively - and it does because it is here where we are informed primarily by our experiences. But our consciences are also those places in which our sense of right and wrong are informed not only by our experiences but also by acquired knowledge; knowledge of moral standards, knowledge of civil law, and knowledge of the divine law. How we respond in any given situation, then, is going to depend in large part on what we devote to our experiences. And ultimately, how we respond and choose to act will define who we are - and Who is the better part of us.

It can be very confusing to try and determine what we will be or do - or should be or do - in any given situation. Each of us - without exception - has much to offer not because we've spent a lifetime acquiring and accumulating but because we are all created in that divine image of the Lord. Every opportunity we are faced with, however great or small, is an opportunity to make a confession of faith and do what we are each called to do within the perfection of that divine image ... OR ... respond instinctively, almost "animalistically" according to the "dust" from which we all come - and to which we will all return.

St. Paul expresses it best in 2 Corinthians 4; "We have this treasure (the Gospel of Christ) in earthen vessels (our bodies) that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair ... therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward person (our bodies) is perishing, yet the inward person (our souls) is being renewed day by day." I will add: by the choices we make.

So it falls to us to pay more attention to the much better and far-more-enduring part of ourselves, that part which is not "perishing" by nature but which is being "renewed day by day" - that is, each day we devote ourselves in totality to the sovereignty of our Lord; the Holy One who calls us to daily spiritual renewal; the Holy One who owns everything; the Eternal One who calls His faithful to eternal life in Christ Jesus. He is, in fact, our Emperor, our King. He is, indeed, our very Life.

Hunger as Hope

2011-10-10T15:33:00.000-05:00

Matthew 22:1-14

M*A*S*H is one of my all-time favorite TV shows. Though there are often some rather racy parts, the overall story lines were often pretty good lessons of the good that can still come in the midst of the tragedy and chaos of war.

There is one particular episode that occurred to me just this morning as I was still struggling with what to share with you, and I recalled a particular episode featuring the elitist Major Charles Emerson Winchester III. If you are not familiar with the character, Maj. Winchester was a snooty, though exceptional surgeon who thought himself to be above all those he worked with, but he often was faced with situations that challenged his high-brow attitude and brought him low, down with the rest of us.

In this episode set during Christmas, Maj. Winchester's family had sent to him boxes of high-dollar chocolates with which to share with the local orphans. The family tradition he was going to continue in Korea was one whose custom it was to leave the candy at the door of those less fortunate - and remain anonymous.

Maj. Winchester discovered later that the headmaster at the orphanage where he had delivered these chocolates had taken that expensive candy and sold it on the black market. When he confronted the headmaster and demanded that the candy be reacquired and given to the children as intended, the headmaster did not deny that he had sold the candy. But he also told the major that the candy brought good money on the black market and enabled him to buy enough rice and cabbage to feed the orphans for an entire month. The headmaster was humbled and apologetic for having spoiled Maj. Winchester's family tradition, but it was Maj. Winchester who had been truly humbled. He came to realize, as he stated, that "it is inappropriate to offer dessert to a child who's had no meal."

It occurred to me that the wedding robe in Jesus' parable could represent the "meal" the poor man had been lacking, for it is the lack of this robe that caused the king to put the man out from the banquet and cast him "into outer darkness". "For many are called, but few are chosen."

What makes such a contention awkward, however, is that the man is being put out of the banquet as a means of punishment; as judgment for having been found lacking in the one thing he would have needed in order to be allowed to stay. Scholars and theologians have questioned the meaning of the robe itself since the very early days of the Church. Some had suggested that the wedding robe represents the Covenant by baptism while others insisted the robe had to represent "charity", that form of love which gives of itself above and beyond one's own desires and preferences. More contemporary preachers have insisted that the robe itself, in order to make one worthy of one's presence at the banquet, must surely represent faith in Christ. That one does make sense, of course, because we cannot by any human standards or means make ourselves worthy to be in the presence of the "king". We are offered that grace, that unmerited favor, by the Lord alone.

Jesus said, "My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55 NKJV), but surely there is still something that must come before this - not from the Lord's hand but from within each of us. We must have a reason to strive, to ask questions, to seek answers. We must have a reason to endure all the obstacles as well as opportunities that are put before us in this life. And we must understand that the call to come forward and embrace the Lord and His covenant is born of something deep within us that gives us a reason to answer that call, a reason to believe that call is worth answering: hope. "For many are called, but few are chosen."

How are we "chosen"? What can we do, what MUST we do so that we can even "hear", let alone "heed" that call? Very simple. We must deny ourselves "dessert" before we've had the "meal". With all respect due our vegetarian and vegan friends, we must first endure the "meat and potatoes" before we dare reach for the "fluffy cake". Surely we have discovered over time that which nourishes and strengthens our bodies ... and that which, while sweet and pleasing to the palate, adds nothing of substance to our bodies - except maybe a little more "body" than we need! Dessert only pleases the senses, but it adds nothing of lasting value to that which we truly need.

"Take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day [of the Lord] come on you unexpectedly. For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch, therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man" (Luke 21:34-36).

Jesus does not make it easy. In Luke's gospel Jesus questions our allegiance to Him: "Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord' and not do the things which I say" (6:46)? And we cannot ignore the parable of the talents (Mt 25:1-30) Jesus tells to make the point that even slaves or servants of the master, who clearly "believe" there is a master, cannot simply "sit" on or "bury" what has been entrusted to their care not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the master who will, inevitably and eventually, return and require an accounting.

So the robe cannot simply represent a vague "faith" in something or an empty proclamation in a Lord we never knew (by ignorance of scripture) nor can the robe be tied exclusively to a religious practice such as baptism or even Holy Communion, sacramental and necessary though these may be. I think maybe St. Augustine and St. Gregory were closer to the mark in suggesting the wedding robe must necessarily invest heavily in "charity", that sacrificial form of love that requires much of self but seems to offer little in the way of rewards we seem more inclined to desire.

Yet we know - or should know - by scriptural proclamation that such charity offers much. Love is all-encompassing and surpasses all else we may or may not do in this life. Love is indeed its own reward and for its own sake - and not for the sake of what we may intend to acquire for ourselves. But even love itself requires something. As demanding as love can often be, we have before us a reason to love, a reason to give of ourselves, a reason to invest in something that may or may not have an immediate return but which will benefit someone else.

We hope. We dare to hope. We have reason to hope. We follow Christ not because He leaves candy or money on the path by which to know His path. Instead He leaves bread; enough bread to sustain us but not enough by which we may overindulge. Enough bread to let us know it is good and that more is to be desired, but not so much that we stop following because we are full. Enough bread that we are satisfied but hungry enough to pursue its source. Enough bread to sustain the hope that there is more, but WE MUST PURSUE IT. We must follow His path. We must obey His Word and His teachings. We are "guaranteed" nothing so that we stop pursuing, but we are given enough that we dare to hope for more!

The path is not an easy one. Nothing worth pursuing ever is, but we continue in pursuit not because we "expect" anything to be handed to us on a silver platter but because we know the work that is to be done for Him gives others a reason to have hope. And when they hope, we hope.

The very reason why the precise meaning of the wedding robe is not readily made known by Jesus may be His reason to keep such a meaning shrouded in mystery. If He were to have stated very plainly what the robe represented, we might be inclined to say "Oh", and then remove ourselves from further inquiry. He could have chosen to make it easier for us to understand precisely what He meant - and what He means for us today - but should we not realize by now that we learn nothing until we have endured something? Do we not realize that in our own earthly goals and plans that we actively engage and pursue not because of a "guarantee" but because we can hope for something on the other end? Why would the path and the life Jesus calls us to be any different, any less engaging, any less challenging and difficult?

It is not so that our journey is made more difficult than it already is. It is so that upon the Day of the Lord, perhaps He will turn to see and count those who are following, those who are hungry and yet hopeful that He has a robe just for you ... and for me.

He does, you know. "Many are called", indeed, but perhaps those who are actually "chosen" are those who have been actively engaged in and with Him in the difficult journey we call "life". But we must follow HIM. Through Scripture. It is His revelation, it is His Word manifest in our lives today. It is our very hope, our reason to persevere, our reason to endure to the very end. Where our robe will be waiting.

A Thought

2011-10-10T15:27:00.000-05:00

CHAPTER VI
Of Silence
“Let us do what the Prophet saith: "I said, I will take heed of my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I have set a guard to my mouth, I was dumb, and was humbled, and kept silence even from good things" (Ps 38[39]:2-3). Here the prophet showeth that, if at times we ought to refrain from useful speech for the sake of silence, how much more ought we to abstain from evil words on account of the punishment due to sin.”

This is a piece of chapter 6 of “The Rule of St. Benedict”, written some 1500 years ago and still very much in use today as a means of regulating (for lack of a better word) behavior and conduct while living in such a community as a monastery. However, looking further at the Rule might reveal more than we are likely comfortable with. It is a strong discipline that requires much of those living in such a community, but is there less required of us who also live within a faith community? Like monks, are we not of one heart and one mind as it pertains to the Lord Himself?

This is not the vow of silence most of us believe monks live under. Rather it is a discipline to be more inclined to hear and to listen than to talk, for it is in silence and stillness when we can truly hear what our Lord has to say.

A Thought

2011-10-06T09:08:00.000-05:00

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Proverb 9:10

To acquire knowledge of the Holy One is to actively engage in the study of Scripture – there is no other way. Once this knowledge is acquired, we begin to understand the Lord and who He is. We learn human history through the eyes of the Lord, and we learn of human folly through the demands of humanity – all from Scripture. Once we make this distinction between our foolishness and His purposes and understand more about the Lord and how He has, throughout human history, repeatedly saved humanity from itself, then we can begin to acquire an intense respect (“fear”) of the Lord and His purposes. Once we begin to understand this divine purpose and finally figure out that it is not always about “me”, we can finally say we are only then at the threshold (“the beginning”) of wisdom.

Do you love your spouse? Do you attend to your spouse, to the exclusion of others, when he or she beckons? Then you can say you have love for your spouse. The same goes for children, friends, and other acquaintances. So why can we not offer to the Lord that same level of attention? I think if we were to begin rearranging our priorities and make more time for the study of Scripture (it will not just happen), we will find what we have spent a lifetime in search of.

A Thought

2011-10-05T09:25:00.000-05:00

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1-2

There are the many, mainly those who turn their noses up at the Church and the Bible, who insist there are too many conflicts within the Bible for it to be taken seriously. They fail to remember, as do many Christians, that (1) Jesus is not a “new” God but is in fact the very Word of God, (2) Jesus states very clearly that “the Father and I are one”, (3) Jesus also states that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, and (4) the New Testament does not in any way disavow the Old.

There are troublesome passages and books, to be sure, but this only means we must be more forthright and intentional in our engagement in Bible study. It is probably the most important lesson I took from the Benedictines when I visited the monastery in Subiaco last week: don’t just read the words on the page; engage the Word – that is, Christ the Lord. St. Jerome said it very clearly in the early Church: “If you do not know Scripture, you do not know Christ.” Which is to say, if we do not know the Christ of the Scripture, we are in danger of creating for ourselves a “god” in our own image based only on what sounds good to us at a particular time. THAT “god” we create in our own personal image will surely die when we do.

The Word was “with God” from the very beginning. This is the Eternal Life we are offered in Him … and Him alone.

A Thought

2011-10-04T09:05:00.000-05:00

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers them out of these afflictions.” Psalm 34:19

Afflictions of illness. Afflictions of persecution. Afflictions of doubt. Afflictions of debt. We are rarely without afflictions on one level or another, but we must never surrender to these afflictions as some curse of the Lord or an attempt by the evil one to “get us”. Often we bring afflictions onto ourselves one way or the other, but the divine test comes as we work our way through these challenges; a test to determine what (or Whom) we reach for in our distress. AND we do not often consider that deliverance from these afflictions will not always match what we have in mind for ourselves. It is surrendering to this reality that determines whether our trust is fully placed in the Lord and whether we will allow Him to deliver us from our afflictions on His terms, or whether we will demand our own terms.

Live today with the sure knowledge that the Lord is, in fact, with you. Believe that He will see you through your darkest hours. Know that His deliverance is at hand. Call out to the Lord in your distress – and in your abundance! – so as to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8).

Sequestered ... but not really

2011-10-02T16:34:00.000-05:00

It is very strange - or ironic - that after my first visit to a monastery (Subiaco Abbey and Academy in Subiaco AR), I returned home with a severe case of pink eye in which one eye was so enflamed and swollen nearly shut. Yet I found my "inner" eye opened to a certain spiritual reality: rank-and-file Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, seem not nearly as attuned to our Lord as we like to believe ourselves to be. And unfairly compared with a Benedictine monastery, one might be inclined to suggest that no realistic comparison can be made. Benedictine monks, after all, are devoted to the religious life. It is, according to our cultural vernacular, their "job" to be religious while we on the outside have "real jobs" which as a matter of professional survival must be our primary focus.

Fair enough, but not really. In the more appropriate context of what is truly important in this life, we can take some very comforting - and radical, according to our contemporary society - lessons from the Benedictines that will serve us very well not only within our own family structures but, perhaps more importantly, within our church family structures as well. If it is true, as some have suggested, that undue stress is a precursor to poor health, it might be notable that what we are entirely too familiar with, as stress factors go, is virtually unknown in the monastic community.

None of this is to say that such a life is ideal or that anyone can simply choose such a life, of course, because even monks are human beings with the same inclinations. They live within a physical structure of flesh and bone just as we do. They work as we work, and they have conflicts among their own monastic families as we do in our biological families - and church families. Surely to goodness they have the same lustful inclinations toward the flesh as we do. What they also have, which most of us may be lacking, is a clear calling, spiritual gifts you and I cannot begin to imagine, and a sense of divine purpose equal to none.

The monastic movement came about in the early 6th century and is credited to St. Benedict of Nursia who, strangely enough, founded monasteries in Subiaco, Italy, about 40 miles to the east of Rome. St. Benedict was a child of nobility and could have easily found his life as one of privilege and leisure, but clearly the Lord had something else in mind. It is said by Pope St. Gregory who wrote a biography of sorts, however, that Benedict showed signs of piety in early adulthood and is believed to have been led away to what would become to this day an enduring 1500-year tradition of contemplative prayer and service, after surrendering his nobles rights and substantial estates.

Some sources suggest there is no evidence to support the idea that St. Benedict intended to found a religious order, that the Order of St. Benedict came much later than the man himself. What Benedict did do with consideration intention is to write The Rule of Benedict which endures to this day. In its English translation it is a mere 96 pages and is more inclined to guidance rather than to hard-and-fast rules for every situation that may arise. And while you and I may feel some "pity" for the monks who seem sequestered from the "real world" and "trapped" within a community governed by overbearing and unrealistic rules and regulations, one cannot help but to discover through The Rulethe incredible spiritual freedom that seems to come from a life totally devoted to the Lord, His will, and His way.

For instance, it was noted by author Kathleen Norris in her book, The Cloister Walk, that the Liturgy of the Hours, the Benedictines' devotional prayer time, is recognized as "the sanctification of time ... In our culture, time can seem like an enemy. It chews us up and spits us out with appalling ease. But the monastic perspective welcomes time as a gift from God, and seeks to put it to good use rather than allowing us to be used up by it." This liturgical time is "poetic time oriented toward PROCESS rather than PRODUCTIVITY. [It is time] willing to wait attentively in stillness rather than always pushing to get the job done." The "job", of course, being to cover a certain amount of biblical literature in a certain and predefined amount of time.

The main premise of the monastic life, however, is in learning to live an entirely Christ-centered existence within a communal setting. The Lord is not incidental to anything; He is primary to everything, but everything is within that communal context - that is, the absolute reality of living and dealing with all kinds of people. For instance, chapter one of The Rule states: "It is well known that there are four kinds of monks. The first kind is that of Cenobites, that is, the monastic, who live under a rule and an Abbot.
The second kind is that of Anchorites, or Hermits, that is, of those who, no longer in the first fervor of their conversion, but taught by long monastic practice and the help of many brethren, have already learned to fight against the devil; and going forth from the rank of their brethren well trained for single combat in the desert, they are able, with the help of God, to cope single-handed without the help of others, against the vices of the flesh and evil thoughts.
But a third and most vile class of monks is that of Sarabaites, who have been tried by no rule under the hand of a master, as gold is tried in the fire (cf Prov 27:21); but, soft as lead, and still keeping faith with the world by their works, they are known to belie God by their tonsure. Living in two's and three's, or even singly, without a shepherd, enclosed, not in the Lord's sheepfold, but in their own, the gratification of their desires is law unto them; because what they choose to do they call holy, but what they dislike they hold to be unlawful.
But the fourth class of monks is that called Landlopers, who keep going their whole life long from one province to another, staying three or four days at a time in different cells as guests. Always roving and never settled, they indulge their passions and the cravings of their appetite, and are in every way worse than the Sarabaites. It is better to pass all these over in silence than to speak of their most wretched life.
Therefore, passing these over, let us go on with the help of God to lay down a rule for that most valiant kind of monks, the Cenobites."

It would be easy to suggest Benedict is insisting that those who reject the monastic life are unworthy of spiritual consideration, but I think he was speaking much more broadly to the WHOLE CHURCH and not to any single monastery. Communal living is a reality for us all. Even as Benedict lived in a cave, he insisted in his Rule that hospitality to guests was of the utmost importance. Monks are not sequestered from the world. As was my observation at Subiaco, they are in fact praying for the world. In the most profound sense, they are truly and fully invoking the Lord's Prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours. After my first session with them in afternoon prayers, I was left with a keen sense that if these and other monks the world over were not stopping to pray and contemplate the Psalms, the devil would have already turned this world upside down. I was left with an incredible sense of well-being that these devoted men were themselves the "gatekeepers" against whom the very "gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matthew 16:18).

The Benedictines are not miracle workers in any sense of the word even though there are miracles attributed to St. Benedict which led to his veneration. They pray, as Jesus commands all His faithful to pray, that the Father's will be done - "on earth as it is in heaven". They contemplate in silence, in the "poetry of time", to allow themselves to be permeated by the Holy Scripture rather than to brag that they've read the whole Bible in a year. They are most mindful of the little things even as we are reminded of the big things that threaten to overwhelm us. Above all else, they offer to us a "glimpse of who we can be when we remember to love" ... to love the Lord God first "with all we have and with all we are".

The Lord bless the Benedictines of Subiaco AR as they have surely blessed me and so many others.

In it to Win it for ...?

2011-10-02T14:59:00.000-05:00

Exodus 20:1-20
Matthew 21:33-46

There was a business leadership study published in 2001 in Harvard Business Review ("Level 5 Leadership: triumph of humility and fierce resolve") that studied Fortune 500 companies and how "good" companies became "great" companies. The original intent of the study was to downplay top executives' roles and focus instead on the dynamics that played a role in the transitions from mediocrity to exceeding all reasonable expectations. The study intended to consider other factors to try and determine how ALL companies could share in the same success story - or write their very own.

It was finally determined, however, that there was a particular type of leader at the very top of the hierarchies of 11 of 1435 Fortune 500 companies that made the grade. These 11 were not a mere sampling; these 11 companies out of 1435 were the only ones that went from ho-hum "to the stars" - AND - sustained that phenomenal growth for 15 years or more.

The one common factor each of these 11 companies shared was what is called "level 5" leadership. Taking into consideration all other factors that contributed to these companies' "rags to riches" stories, it was found of the other 1424 companies in the Fortune 500 that this "level 5" leadership was distinctly absent.

Level 4 leadership, ironically, is what we are typically more familiar with and drawn to. These business leaders make headlines, write books; and are highly sought after for leadership seminars, business roundtable discussions - and other competitors. People in and outside the business world want to know what these leaders think and say, and we lay people are truly inspired by many of them. The problem, however, is that these "leaders" were not really "leaders" in the truest sense of the word. They are exceptional managers, of course, and they are very well educated and accomplished in their fields. They are also very focused and driven to succeed at all cost - but for their own personal accomplishment.

There is one thing lacking in these 1424 Fortune 500 managers that is clearly evident in the other 11 accomplished leaders who took their companies to the top, beyond, and held them there: that one particular attribute is humility. For these genuine leaders, it was not about self-promotion or self-accomplishment. It was not about enhancing their own resumes for the next big thing that lay ahead for them. These 11 successful leaders were just as driven, just as focused, and just as educated and accomplished as all the others, but their drive was toward a different end that never really came to be, and their focus was entirely on the well-being of the companies they served - "served" being the operative word. The companies did not serve these leaders' purposes. And even as they were actively engaged in the leadership and management of their respective companies, they were simultaneously preparing their eventual successors so that when their time at the helm was up, the companies would not suffer during the transition. The strength and well-being of the companies these leaders served was the entire focus of their work. It was never about them personally or even professionally, and yet the rewards came incidentally.

We all want - and need - to believe we matter. We all want to know we have touched someone or something in such a profound way that inspires others to achievement. We need to know we did much more than to simply exist. So we can understand all these corporate executives and their drive to make their marks in the world. Though we may never aspire to such heights - and few of us will - we still would like to know that somehow, some way, long after we are gone from this world, that we will be remembered in a positive, uplifting way. It is unfortunate that too often, however, we confuse "personal achievement" with "bearing fruit" because we forget who we are - and Who we belong to - and why we as People of YHWH are set apart from the rest of the world in the first place.

The tenants in Jesus' parable (Mt 21:33-46) forgot why the vineyard was leased and entrusted to their care in the landowner's absence. They mistakenly came to believe the vineyard and its fruits were only for their consumption. They forgot that the vineyard belonged to Someone else and that no matter the length and depth of their efforts, ownership of that vineyard would never transfer to them. They had no rightful claim to it except by the terms of the lease which would surely include their own compensation and stake in the harvest of the vineyard. They decided the vineyard was theirs to do with as they pleased and when the landowner sent his own servants - and eventually his own son - to collect what was rightfully due him, they resisted to the point of destroying those who were sent by the landowner. They were willing to succeed in their evil endeavor AT ALL COST for their own personal benefit. As Jesus points out in the parable, however, the evil tenants - because they were focused on the vineyard and not the fruit - would eventually be destroyed themselves.

Jesus was obviously talking about Israel, the people of faith whose care had been entrusted to the religious leaders. The religious leaders, however, came to believe their esteemed positions were somehow deserved. Their favored status gave them a mistaken sense of "elitism" in which they came to believe all they had at their hands was rightfully theirs to claim, to own, and to do with as they pleased. They forgot that they had been "given" nothing and that their personal benefit or achievement would be incidental to what they were themselves willing to give to others. They had lost all sense of humility and sense of genuine - and divine - purpose.

Throughout Israel's history, we are well aware of the prophets - the "servants" - of the Landowner who were sent to Israel at "harvest time" to collect what was due the Landowner. Rather than give up their favored status, however, these "level 4" leaders were only interested in what they believed they had coming to them - what they believed they were "owed". They mistakenly came to believe the vineyard - Israel - was theirs for the taking and that they were entitled to any and all fruit that would come forth. They wanted to live only for themselves, and they believed Israel existed for their own benefit. So throughout Israel's history, prophets who were sent to call the whole of Israel to repentance were destroyed by the religious leaders and the people who were unwilling to concede anything that personally favored them and their own selfish purposes.

Remember previously, however, that I suggested that biblical interpretation must be read with an eye toward the past but not as a mere matter of determining who was at fault thousands of years ago. If we believe in the Holy Spirit as the essence of a benevolent God who continues to speak to His people today through Holy Scripture - that one true standard we have - then it is incumbent upon us to read and interpret Scripture not according to what we think Jesus MEANT 2000 years ago - but what He MEANS today to His beloved Bride the Church. The WHOLE Church.

So if it is true that believers are a "holy priesthood" called forth to "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5), then we must necessarily believe Jesus is speaking through His parable to all believers who mistakenly claim a favored position in the Church and have come to believe the Church exists for them and their personal endeavors. We who are entirely focused on the Church as our personal "turf" and not on the fruit we are required to bear as "tenants" of the Landowner's rightful property are the ones who are being implicated and indicted. If we view the Church as our private chapel or "country club" that is to be used only for our personal desires - or only when it suits us - will either repent ... or be "crushed by the Chief Cornerstone" who is Christ our Lord - AND - our Judge.

We are required to be "level 5" leaders ourselves, and we are called forth and set apart from the rest of the world to be driven and focused on our Lord's purposes. We are required to be as well-educated in Holy Scripture as these business leaders were in management theory. And like these "level 5" leaders, we are to be all about the well-being of the CHURCH and have the faith to believe the rewards will come at the leisure and pleasure of our benevolent and Holy Father.

I have often been asked why I insist upon celebrating Holy Communion every Sunday "like the Catholics" instead of every month "like the Methodists". It is for this reason and this reason alone: we are to be constantly reminded of why we gather in the first place - AND - for Whom. It is not so we can walk away feeling good that we have perhaps accomplished something like feeling good about ourselves. It is entirely about feeling good about Him. The Landowner. The Master. The Savior. The Redeemer. And His SOLE purpose: to produce fruit. And when we do this, we will be aptly rewarded ... according to the terms set forth by the Landowner. And no other.

Righteousness Delayed; Righteousness denied

2011-09-25T08:12:00.000-05:00

Philippians 2:1-13
Matthew 21:23-32

Sometimes the meanings of Jesus' parables are so obscure that it is difficult to get any real, contemporary meaning from them. What often makes interpretation even more difficult is in discovering that the indictment that may be implicit is often directed at the reader ... IF the reader is genuinely open to hearing the Spirit. This is not to say we should all feel guilty or worry about being made to feel guilty each time we read a parable; not at all. It is, however, the height of arrogance to believe any parable cannot - or does not - speak to us but is instead directed at "someone else".

So goes the confusion in trying to assign each of the sons in Jesus' parable as representing one particular group or another. Each may have its own merit accordingly, and sound points can be made for each. However, trying to decide which person or group is "guiltier" than the other goes back to what was previously stated. We could change the meaning by reading a different Bible translation - OR - we can simply decide where we are less likely to be personally implicated.

We may do better for ourselves and Jesus' purpose for the Church in using this parable of the two sons if we were to first decide what the vineyard represents. Once this is accomplished, we can then more reasonably determine exactly what sort of vineyard "work" is being assigned - and put off or ultimately refused. If we can nail this down, we will have a better understanding of what each player represents for Jesus' purposes and where we fit into the story today.

First we must go back and bring the story into context. Jesus had entered into Jerusalem and was hailed as a conquering hero (Mt 21:1-9). He then moved into the Temple and sent the money changers packing (Mt 21:12-13). Inside the Temple Jesus healed the blind and the lame who came to Him. The chief priests and scribes were witnesses to these deeds of mercy and were only concerned with the delighted cries and praises of the children who were chanting what was chanted as Jesus entered into Jerusalem: "Hosanna to the Son of David!" After an overnight stay in Bethany, the scripture says Jesus was hungry but found nothing but leaves on a fig tree (presumably in fruit-bearing season). Because there was no fruit on what should have been a fruit-bearing tree even though it "looked like" what it was supposed to, Jesus condemned the tree and it "withered" away.

When the chief priests and elders confronted Jesus, He was back in the Temple teaching but we are not told exactly what the Lord was teaching. We can be pretty sure the people are eating it up as coming from One with substantial authority to teach because it is that authority which was being called into question. In AND outside the Church even today, the teachings of the Lord are called into question! By believers and non-believers alike! We pick and choose what makes the most sense to us or is most pleasing for our particular lifestyle or circumstance. And this, I think, is the key to what scripture can impart to us today if we are honest enough and open enough to believe the Spirit is speaking directly to us through scripture.

The vineyard itself can be as simple as representing an agricultural reality, a distinct cultural point of reference for the people to whom Jesus is speaking so they can understand His point. For our purposes, however, there is a much broader application since few of us manages a vineyard. For the purposes of the Gospel, then, the vineyard must represent the mission field. The work which must be done is that missional work for which the Church was called into being in the first place and for which the Church continues to be equipped, called forth, and set apart: the proclamation of the Gospel of the Lord. There can be no other reasonable task for the Church as the Body of Christ. None. Everything else is secondary to the primary.

We are called forward today as children of the Father, "heirs to the vineyard" with a legitimate stake in the care and well-being of that "vineyard", and we are assigned our role through the Church as "heirs" and sent into the mission field. So when we are confronted with Jesus' presentation to the authorities of His day, it does not fall upon us to determine exactly what Jesus meant 2000 years ago, which group was being implicated, or only within that particular context. To try to do so can have a useful role in interpretation, but it has a greater tendency to remove us from the story altogether. Yet the question for us is not which "son" we belong with. I think the more appropriate and profound question is: do we even fit with either one? Do we act in any way like "children of the Father" who would be trusted with the important work of the vineyard?

The chief priests may well have answered Jesus' question correctly. After all, even the delay and perhaps a second thought brought the first son around, and he went about his work in the vineyard. It should not escape our notice, however, that initially the first son - by his action - challenged and perhaps questioned his father's authority to assign the work in the first place. That he eventually got around to doing it does not account for the "in your face" attitude the father was likely confronted with in the beginning. We also cannot push aside the adage that "righteousness (or justice) delayed is righteousness (or justice) denied." Clearly some task in the vineyard was important enough that the father assigned the work to his "own" children. To deny the work and then come back later may run parallel to the concept of 'repentance', but we must then understand whose "will" was actually being done with a delayed response and reaction. Here's a clue: it was not the father's will that was being done.

The second son lied to his father outright. He gave the father the "correct" answer but he failed to follow through, and there is no indication he ever intended to do his father's will; he only needed to get beyond that moment. It would be a safe bet, however, to believe that son would expect his own share of the harvest! So it was easier, then, to tell his father what he likely wanted to hear. In refusing to do the work, however, the same result came into play: the direct challenge to the father's authority and the outright "denial of righteousness". It might be easy to suggest, then, that neither son was the "correct" answer although we can see a parallel between those who claim kinship but do not act within that relationship - and - those who deny the necessity and need for that relationship in the beginning but do finally come around - but on their own terms.

Even if the chief priests and elders answered the question correctly, however, it does not mean they escaped indictment which we can obviously see. We must also consider what we hear in Church and what we read in Holy Scripture and how we respond - if we respond at all ... or if it all goes in one ear and out the other. All the while, we stand firm and secure - as the chief priests and elders did - in our own sense of self-declared righteousness according to our own self-established standards while we stand in judgment of others - and ultimately question Jesus' authority over our own lives when we delay entering into the vineyard as we have been asked ... or if we refuse altogether. The indictment, I think, stands the same. Righteousness delayed is indeed righteousness denied.

It is not always easy to discern the Spirit. We can clearly see folks even within the Holy Church claiming to be led by the Spirit but clearly acting outside of what is written in scripture. They seem more like those of the time of the Judges, "doing what seems best in his or her own eyes", making up their own rules in spite of what seems clearly spelled out in scripture because they - perhaps we - claim a "kinship" but do not act within the context of that kinship. Neither of the two "sons" acted within the appropriate context of the relationship they enjoyed with the "father"; instead they each chose their own paths. One delayed the will of the father, and the other denied the will of the father outright.

We must be careful of the paths we choose for ourselves. Jesus' lesson in the parable seems clear enough. The Father owns the vineyard outright, and He means for the vineyard to be cared for, cultivated, and nurtured so that even more fruit will come forth. Because the work of the vineyard is so important, then, He will only trust His very own children to do the work because His own children have the Father's best interests at heart. It is the pursuit of holiness, of sanctification, of "wholeness" that bears fruit for the Father's vineyard. Those inside will be found working at the "harvest", the great Day of the Lord when Christ returns. Those outside the vineyard - by delay or outright refusal - will just be ... outside.

A Thought

2011-09-22T08:52:00.000-05:00

“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” Hebrews 12:14

Peace and holiness are attributes that require willful decisions on our part. The writer of Hebrews makes plain that peace is to be “pursued”, not simply wished for. The pursuit of holiness; that is, “completeness”, also involves willful decisions not only to resist evil impulses but to actively engage in the pursuit of those virtues and deeds of mercy in the name of Christ that make our Holy Father look good to non-believers. It is a tall order, I’ll grant you, but the promises of Scripture make plain the rewards.

Do not be deceived by the worldly suggestion that our faith is a private, personal matter. Our faith is to be lived openly and in plain sight for all to see, and it is in the active pursuit of “peace” and “holiness” by which our faith is made manifest to those who lack both – not to “force” them to make a decision or live according to standards our faith demands of us, but to give them a compelling reason to want to know more.

You know the Truth. So must we order our lives accordingly.

A Thought

2011-09-21T08:17:00.000-05:00

“You ask and do not receive because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.” James 4:3

Though I should not be, I continue to be astounded at the number of persons who turn away from the Church and the Lord because they are convinced their prayers were ignored. In their minds because their personal petitions had not been granted, it was proved to them there is no God – or – He is not a God worth following. They have discovered for themselves yet another “contradiction” in the Bible (“If you ask anything in My name, I will do it” John 14:14).

There is nothing in Scripture I am aware of that indicates on any level that the Lord does, or will do, “personal favors” nor does personal enrichment do much to glorify the Kingdom of Heaven. James and John both reveal what we should ask and what we should seek. It is to the glory of His Church for the sake of the Gospel. When we can show the Lord we mean to work the Gospel to His glory and not our own, we will ask and will receive all we need (but not necessarily our every heart’s desire) to that end.

It is entirely about the Gospel of the Lord. The Lord means for others who do not know to come to know, and the Lord means for His Church to be about making sure others know. Let us learn to ask and to work to that end. Then, and only then, will we find riches and prosperity beyond our imaginations … when we prove to the Lord we can be so trusted.

Cruel Irony

2011-09-20T08:47:00.000-05:00

The Circle of Life, ironically, involves death. There. I said it. Let me put it another way. We are all - without exception - going to die sooner or later. There is no way around it. It is not cruel; it is just reality. The only time we consider an untimely death to have been tragic is if the death involved someone we personally loved though I do also think we collectively weep and mourn (as we should) when a child suffers and dies, particularly at the hands of cruel humans. Strange that with technology (such as it is), we do not consider abortion to be particularly cruel or inhumane but we believe capital punishment to be "cruel and unusual".

At a recent Republican debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer apparently tried to corner Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, with a hypothetical question involving a comatose patient who lacked health insurance and whether Mr. Paul would have just let him die. An audience member shouted, "Yes!" to the hypothetical and was later attributed to the Tea Party (whether that audience member was a Tea Partier or not, I have no idea and frankly do not care). In the first place, hypothetical questions are almost always unfair because too much is assumed but not enough is allowed. There are always going to be mitigating factors involved in life-and-death issues as well as medical decisions and choices which must be made. There was too much left on the table, but I would have expected no less from a moderator who actively engages debate participants in a sort of side-bar mini-debate. Mr. Paul was asked that question specifically because he is a licensed physician.

Does it matter? Does a physician have more or less insight into the reality of death than, say, the hypothetical uninsured comatose patient's family? Does society have a collective interest in how or whether the hypothetical comatose patient is treated? Some say yes simply because that hypothetical patient could one day be us or someone we love. What we offer to allow is what we are suggesting we would embrace for ourselves - hypothetically, of course. It is the philosophical Social Contract which simply states that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We would impose no more or fewer restrictions on "someone" than we would reasonably expect for ourselves. Hypothetically, of course. All bets are off, however, when the hypothetical becomes real and is manifest in our own lives. It is reasonable to allow a stranger to mercifully pass from this life, but it somehow becomes an act of cruelty when it involves someone we love.

I do not propose a hard-and-fast solution to each hypothetical situation, and I cannot suggest there is an appropriate age limit by which to gauge and measure a life worth saving. What I can suggest is that we must first get past our unreasonable, irrational fear of death. We do not have to fall in love with death, but we also cannot ignore its harsh reality. People die every day, and there is no medical procedure or adequate amount of health insurance that will change the certainty of death. We can delay it, of course, but we can never "solve" it because it is not a problem to be solved. There will never be a day in which all persons will live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in their sleep. I think the health care debate will never be real until we first get next to this certain, ironic reality of life.

A Thought

2011-09-20T08:04:00.002-05:00

“By [Christ] let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God; that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Hebrews 13:15-16

As the saying goes, ‘all we have is a gift from God. What we do with what we have is our gift to God.’

Praise and worship – and – giving of ourselves is the holistic approach to doing honor and glory to the Lord. So many love to say that being in church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car. True enough, but we cannot ignore or neglect any part of what it means to be the Body of Christ. There can be no segment of our total living experience that is immune from Christ Himself, nothing that is uniquely “ours” over which the Lord has no legitimate claim. So what we do with what we have has everything to do with the measure of our commitment to the cause of Christ; which is the Gospel for which He died … and the eternal hope for which He was raised from the dead.

Passing the Test

2011-09-18T08:05:00.000-05:00

Exodus 16:2-15
Matthew 6:25-34

Because I was a marginal student and world-class underachiever in high school, there was one phrase that caused me more anxiety than anything else I can remember: "there will be a test". I tried to convince my teachers and my mom I was just not a good "test taker" and part of me probably wanted to believe that, but it was not the problem. It rarely is. The truth is before I finally came around to appreciating the importance and value of education, I was never really prepared for the tests because I didn't do the work; I just crammed the night before. Because I was never prepared, then, my doom was right before me each time a teacher said, "Take out a clean sheet of paper, and put your books under your desk." Life as I knew it was about to come to an end. I didn't fail the tests, mind you, or I would probably still be in high school! I simply had to work harder at the tests because I didn't do the necessary prep work.

A simple definition of "test" goes much deeper than just trying to discover whether a student has prepared or what the student knows. The textbook definition goes like this: A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something (Yahoo dictionary). It must be noted, then, that tests serve other purposes than to simply find out whether or not one adequately prepared, and in the case of medical tests we do not simply want to know "what's there". Each test is a means not of evaluating the past but preparing for the future, "evaluating" the next step, where we go from that point, and whether or not we are even ready to move forward.

The Exodus story is generally understood to be the "manna" story that speaks to the benevolence of the Holy God in His provisions for the people of Israel. They are in the middle of nowhere and going "only Lord knows where", and they have no means to provide for themselves. They are at the mercy of the elements, the wilderness, and one another; and as the story is written, they seem to be ready and willing to be back and at the mercy of their Egyptian taskmasters. At least there they didn't have to worry about where their next meal would come from or where they would lay their heads for sleep.

Notice, however, that the Lord seems to want more from this than to simply make Israel aware of His presence. "I will test them", the Lord says, "whether they will follow My instruction or not" (Exodus 16:4b). Then we are treated with the Lord's intent to provide twice as much manna "on the sixth day" so Israel will be provided for during the seventh day, the Sabbath, so they can avoid gathering and preparing, working, thus not profaning the sacred day of Sabbath.

So is the Lord simply testing Israel's will to obey, or is there something more? Considering where we are in the Exodus story - prior to the revelation of the Law which does not come until chapter 20 - it might be easier to believe there has to be more than just a test of willful obedience. They cannot be tested for what they know about the Law - IF - the Exodus is written chronologically. It would hardly be fair to test them on the Law concerning the Sabbath if they have not yet been made aware of - AND - properly instructed in that Law. There can be no "critical evaluation" of ignorance since there is theoretically nothing to evaluate, but there can be testing as a means of "evaluation" to determine whether or not Israel is ready to move into the next phase of the journey. In fact there must be.

The test as a means of preparation and evaluation can be no less so for the Christian. Though I cannot say this occurred to me before, it will now be pretty hard to imagine Jesus did not have the Exodus in mind as He was teaching this lesson about dependence and focus and trust. It is hard now to consider that we are not also tested along our own "wilderness journey" just as Israel was being so tested. It is hard now to think that wherever we are at any given stage in our own lives, that the Lord is not also preparing us for something greater and trying to determine whether we are adequately prepared for the next step - or if we must stay where we are a little longer.

The "prayer of Jabez" (1 Chronicles 4:10) has been a popular "prosperity Gospel" scripture passage by which otherwise unsuspecting - and unprepared - "sheeple" are shown as "proof" that the Lord grants riches and wealth ('enlarged territory') if we just ask. I've actually heard TV preachers suggest the reason people live in poverty is because a) they've never really asked, b) they didn't ask "correctly" (like they didn't send money to the TV preacher as a sign of faith), or c) implied they were somehow not as 'favored' as, say, a TV preacher who wears custom-tailored suits and drives luxury cars. Obviously those who live in poverty, according to these criteria, are simply not "believing", "practicing" Christians ... not really. They are only "cultural" Christians ... in name only.

That may be an unfair statement, but it strikes at the heart of what the spiritual journey is about. The Lord needs to know whether we can be trusted to move to the next stage, and whether we can be trusted with "enlarged" territory - or additional responsibility - and it has everything to do with whether or not we have been adequately prepared. I find nothing in Scripture to suggest there is anything "magical" about such a transformation.

The Lord's will be done, of course, but we must be equally willful to engage in the learning process and transformation. If we are not adequately prepared or if we see the Gospel only in terms of how we are personally affected or enriched, chances are we are not going to be entrusted with much more until we are prepared to move forward. Moving us too quickly to the deep end of the pool would mean our utter destruction rather than our edification. It is not unlike college entrance exams that determine whether a prospective student has been adequately prepared for college-level work, or if remedial instruction might be more beneficial. We might wish to graduate sooner and remedial work will only delay the goal we have established for ourselves, but throwing a student into a class for which he or she has not been adequately prepared is a recipe for failure. How well we are prepared, then, will determine our next steps, and I will dare say that if the Lord withholds from us our personal wishes or desires because He knows we are not ready - and the Lord would know better than we! - there can be no greater love than denial ... for our own good until we are ready ... because only the Lord knows what is ahead.

"So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today." This is an important concept in the "critical evaluation" of where we are and where we will go from this point. It speaks well of the Wesleyan concept of "justification" - when we become aware of the Lord's grace in our lives - as the next step toward "sanctification" - the "path" toward spiritual perfection ... rather than the "spot" or a magical, mystical "event". It is a process that requires active engagement and participation ... just like any other relationship we may enjoy; and "faith" is the key, the ability and the willingness to trust.

Those who spend their days "worrying" about food and clothing and shelter or jobs and money or just about anything else under the sun are being completely "human". Worrying is what we do best ... in the absence of faith, and we should not overlook Jesus' indictment: "You of little faith" (vs 30). But we must also not confuse "worry" with "planning". Planning requires knowledge of what is; worry involves what might (or might not) be. There is a profound difference between knowledge and faith. Jesus says if we "worry", we are attempting to go it alone ... we lack sufficient faith because we are worrying about the outcome (tomorrow) while in the midst of the test itself.

May the Lord grant us sufficient faith to endure the day that is upon us. May we endure the day with sufficient gratitude to know that even as we may feel we are being "tested" beyond our capacity to endure, we are actually being PREPARED for tomorrow. By His Grace. By His Mercy. For the sake of the Kingdom which is to come.

Prostitution and Ministry: the awkward balance between what the church is and Who the Church is called to be

2011-09-16T15:17:00.000-05:00

Some evangelical, fundamentalist, Calvinist Christians have traditionally tried to attach the Roman Catholic Church to the "whore of Babylon" and portray the pope as the "antichrist" in their feeble attempts to a) interpret and explain difficult scripture passages they cannot comprehend in an appropriate context, b) scare weak-minded people into their churches, or c) dismiss and slander what they clearly do not want to understand. They are not unlike the many Christians today who have completely lost their grasp of the GOSPEL (aka, the "Good News") by turning only toward finding fault with, say, Islam or anyone for that matter who does not share their peculiar ideology. It goes with the pop adage that suggests the general public knows more about Christianity not according to what Christians believe but rather according to what Christians don't like; what Christians are against rather than what Christians are for; what Christians do rather than what they say.

It is a fair criticism especially in our contemporary society as churches become increasingly more politically active and consumer driven, and serve more as lobbyists and market analysts than as ministers and missionaries. It is an unfair characterization, however, when we fail to realize that social justice, public policy, and knowledge of demographics has everything to do with the Gospel of the Lord and the Church's mission. Our society is filled to overflowing with weak, oppressed, and marginalized human beings who - for any number of reasons - cannot stand and speak for themselves. If the Church does not stand for these "least among us", who will? If the Church does not seek them out, who will?

It boils down to expectations and how the Church universal understands and interprets these expectations. Digging deeper still, who has even a right to expect or demand anything from the Church apart from the Lord who literally bled for His Bride? Yet the Protestant church has busied itself in the past few years trying to remake itself into a more "inclusive" public image pleasing to the marketing masses, desperately trying to be relevant by trying to be all things to all people. In this, then, the many churches who so engage in such a PR campaign actually soft-pedal the Holy Scripture, tone down or dismiss altogether those passages of Scripture that are unapologetically "exclusive", deny that repentance is perhaps "the" key term to the spiritual journey, and thus cheat the unsuspecting into a "relationship" that has little meaning beyond what the world would expect or demand from, say, the Optimist Club; that is, according to social or clubhouse - rather than doctrinal - standards.

Since becoming a church pastor, it has become more and more clear that trying to be all things to all people - even those people who claim to be members - just does not work and only opens the church to all kinds of abuse by allowing the standard to be established and maintained only according to whoever screams the loudest and/or has the most money. Those quiet souls who are willing to support the Body as a whole rather than merely defend their own territory or comfort zone generally get pushed aside - OR - pulled in several different directions at the same time by competing forces within the church who each believe they are "right" and have "rights" and will in effect see the church burned to the ground or closed before they will concede this certain spiritual reality: the Church is the Body of Christ, the bride to the Bridegroom; not a "whore" to be used only toward a particular, if exclusive or personal, end.

The Church by its very nature is incredibly "inclusive" because Christ Himself is open to all who seek Him, but the Church is also "exclusive" in that there is a condition to membership: submission to the will of the Lord. Period. If there are those - and there are - who insist the Church must submit to them and their particular, if peculiar, needs; the Church is reduced to a church building, and the building is rented to the highest bidder, and "whore" comes to mind - and in the strictest biblical sense (read the book of Hosea; it is remarkably relevant to contemporary Christianity).

The Church is not a clubhouse, the pastor is not the emcee or a game show host nor even a chair of the board who answers to a board of directors; and the Lord is not for sale or rent. The Lord "does not change" for anyone (it is we who are called to be transformed), and Holy Scripture cannot be rewritten or modified ("do not turn to the left or to the right"). Yet it is the Holy Lord Himself who proclaims: "Come to Me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." How does humanity or society or even a culture come to believe it can somehow improve upon this reality? By trying to make the Church into something it is not: a whore that is willing to be "used" to serve a specific purpose at a specific time for the highest bid and bidder.

With all respect due to female clergy, pastors as shepherds and defenders of the flock are going to have to "grow a pair" and start standing firm. Be fair, as many say, but be firm. Be prepared to lose many in order to gain the faithful few. Let the Lord be the Church's "one foundation", and let the Holy Scripture be the steps that lead us to that Foundation. Stop trying to please everyone, and stop allowing the "wolves" into the sheep's pasture. Stop trying to entertain the masses, and start enlightening the faithful. Stop insisting upon your own authority, and realize you have none apart from what is divinely imparted. Stop demanding, but stand your ground. Stop trying to redefine "love" according to cultural demands, and start explaining what "charity" and "sacrifice" and "loving the Lord God with all you have and all you are" really means - and insist upon it. Be open-minded to certain cultural realities, but be resolute to stand firm in the face of illegitimate challenges. And for the sake of Heaven itself, stop trying to make the Body of Christ into a "one-size-fits-all" moo-moo that requires no effort to get into. Stop trying to repackage "sanctification" into a fad diet that only needs our interim attention until we reach our personal goals.

The Bridegroom will return one day, and He will come to claim His true Bride the Holy Church. He will not be looking for a Saturday night one-night-stand that will run to the next "john" for the next dollar. He will be looking for His Bride who waited patiently for Him ... and was loyal to Him in His absence. The many will indeed be called, but only the faithful will be chosen. Let the Church - the True Church - be found waiting ... and faithful ... and not for sale.

Remembrances

2011-09-14T17:52:00.000-05:00

Exodus 14:19-31 Matthew 18:21-35

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you don't like, you do not believe in the Gospel - you believe in yourself." St. Augustine

Events leading up to the 10-year anniversary of this dreadful day include such questions as, "Where were you when you heard the news that the United States was under attack?" I think most of us remember exactly where we were and what we were doing, but my most vivid recollection of that dreadful day involved my then-12-year-old daughter. She called me at work as soon as she got home from school and was very distressed because she had heard these terrorists wanted to kill American children. It was all I could do, while sitting at my desk and listening to my child's quivering voice on the phone, to keep my composure when all I really wanted to do was to rush home, gather my children, and assure them that everything will be ok. It was in that moment when I began to realize that the innocence of youth in America had been violated, perhaps irreparably so - and the depth of my anger could not be measured.

Americans were profoundly angry, and yet America was as deeply distressed and confused as my 12-year-old child was. Innocence had been shattered, safety and security became a wistful dream, and Americans flocked to churches across the nation. What these many were searching for is anyone's guess, especially those who up to that point had fallen away from the Church or had perhaps never set foot in a church. They - perhaps "we" - were like the indicted Israel whose "faithfulness", according to the prophet Hosea, "is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away" (Hosea 6:4). Divine judgment, according to some TV preachers, was upon us but as soon as the smoke from the attacks cleared, so did the pews.

We approach the altar of the Lord neither with hatred and resentment nor in fear of judgment and condemnation but rather in hope; for it is fear that confines us and binds us against our will. Yet we often forget it is the will of our Holy Father that we live as freed men and women; free to love, free to live, free to come - or - free to go. And the only way we can be free - truly free - to live and to approach the altar of the Lord our God is to free ourselves from the bondage of the past. The shackles that bind us, the chains that hold us hostage against our will are locked with keys held by those we refuse to forgive. They are the ones who control our destiny, and they are the ones who determine whether we will go here or there, we choosing to avoid these persons and situations like a plague out of pure, irrational fear or resentment of the past.

When we allow fear and resentment to overwhelm and control us, there is a transformation which takes place. It is a transformation by which faith is subjected only to what we can see with our eyes, our humanity is diminished, and we are reduced to little more than mindless, instinctive, animalistic behavior. We react and respond aggressively to anything we perceive as a threat to our personal happiness and sense of well-being, and in that mindless wandering we become more like what we despise. As writer and theologian Brian McLaren recently stated: "When we engage opponents in conflict, we can unwittingly catch [the spiritually transmitted disease] they have." We become what we loathe.

Jesus paints a rather vivid portrait of what life is like for those who would take from Grace only what they can use for themselves and then forget what Grace really means as soon as they step away. I think of the "bumper sticker mantra" of so many Christians who proclaim: "We are not perfect - only forgiven" and yet continue in a life that is completely void of forgiveness. They have hate, anger, and resentment against those who have harmed them in some way; and yet they walk about with their chests puffed out under the mistaken notion they have been "forgiven" - even as they refuse to "forgive". They are not living in a dream world; they are facing a spiritual nightmare, a nightmare from which they will not awaken.

- and Jesus makes this very clear.

The slave owed a debt to his master, and the time of reckoning was upon him. Because he was unable to pay - or perhaps unwilling (remember he would have lost his family and his possessions in exchange, but presumably the debt would have been settled) - he pleaded with his master for "patience" and more time to pay the debt that was owed. The benevolent master, rather than giving the slave more time, simply "forgave" the debt. It no longer existed due only to the master's sense of generosity. The debt was presumably a legal, legitimate debt that should have been paid; but "grace" required that the debt simply be absolved, the slate wiped clean. So the slave walked away. An enormous burden had been lifted from him and he had been set free, completely relieved of what he owed. No more fear.

This should have been a time of rejoicing for the slave. You and I can appreciate what he must have been experiencing at the time because you and I have experienced such relief at one time or another. A friend overlooked our transgression. The last payment on a car or house or other loan has been made. We walked away from the altar of the Lord, having experienced that moment of "justification" when we became fully aware that the Lord had wiped our slates clean and had forgiven us of our sins. What freedom! What joy! No longer under a burden of debt, owing no one for nothing, being completely FREE!

As Jesus tells the story, however, no sooner had the slave walked out of his master house - "as he went out", Jesus says - he stepped right back into the same hole his master had just pulled him from. WILLINGLY! FREELY! If mindlessly, "instinctively". More than this, however, the slave's role had just changed. He had been put in the position of the master. He now possessed - by Grace; that unmerited, unearned favor - the same power that only moments earlier had been wielded over him and yet had released him from the legitimate debt he owed. POWER! POWER TO FORGIVE! And he refused to exercise that power. Instead, he chose to abuse that power by using it only to his personal advantage.

Notice the similarity in dynamic. The slave was also owed a legitimate debt by his "fellow slave". The very same stage the first slave stepped from free and clear had been set again before him, and he was now the "director" of the play rather than a player under direction. He had within his power the opportunity to offer the same forgiveness he had only moments before experienced for himself ... and he blew it. He did what was instinctive; he was, after all, owed money. It was his rightful claim ... as was the master's previous claim.

To remember is to learn something from the past, including that dreadful day in 2001, but we are called to remember in a way that goes completely against what our culture seems to be demanding from us. We remember so that we may remain vigilant. The master forgave the debt, but he still remembered the incident. To "forgive AND forget" is neither reasonable nor realistic because we can forgive a transgression, but it is not likely we can forget what happened. To be perfectly honest, I am not even sure we should. HOWEVER, we must remember the incident in a positive, forward-thinking way only as a lesson learned. There is always something we can take forward with us. Indeed it is part and parcel of the faith journey itself. This is what the study of history - and Holy Scripture - is all about. It is not simply about "knowing" what happened or even why. It is entirely about how we will apply these lessons learned in the future.

The slave took the "good news" for the moment but had completely forgotten almost as soon as he had walked out the door. And if we make the same mistake the slave made, we will also be "handed over to be tortured', as Jesus says so clearly, "until [we] pay the entire debt". We, too, will be placed back into the very bondage from which we had previously been delivered, and we, too, will become once again enslaved to persons and events that had previously held us hostage against our will. We, too, will again become what we had once despised.

We are better than this because we are not mindless, instinctive animals because we are created in the Divine Image. We must be better than those who seek to harm us IF we are to be called "children of the Most High God" - for it is only in forgiveness by which we are set free.

I'm just sayin' ...

2011-09-04T17:39:00.000-05:00

•The US Congress is consistently rated below 20% in overall approval in several different polls and there was a substantial shift in power in the US House this past election, yet it seems incumbency still enjoys better than a 90% advantage for career politicians. What does this say about US voters in general?

•Speaking of the Congress and its general inability to get things done, I wonder what would happen if we randomly selected even just 100 (the number of US senators) registered voters, two from each state, to come together and discuss the nation's problems. How many votes of confidence do you think this body could garner? I do not pretend to fully understand the dynamics of the Congress, especially when one party controls the Senate and the opposing party controls the House, but it seems pretty clear that no one - and I mean NO ONE - looks forward to that first day in Congress and eagerly anticipates the historic opportunity to "work with" other Americans to address our problems. My guess is these 100 randomly selected Americans would each show up with their own agendas just as each member of Congress comes with theirs.

•The president is going to give another speech, this time about jobs. He's been in office nearly three years now. I cannot help but to wonder ... why now?

•Stimulus is almost certain to be a part of his overall package (that is if he actually has specific, concrete proposals at all), and Congress will likely consider further stimulus to be just what the doctor ordered. Stimulus has not worked in the past (under any president) and has only been a drain on the US budget to no real end. Reckon they think it will work if they put some "stank" on it?

•The people have generally lost confidence in the US government, and church attendance continues to spiral downward which can only mean people believe only in themselves. The government has let them down, the Church has let them down. Could this be a substantial step toward anarchy?

•Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate for president, claims he will issue a jobs package proposal in a couple of days, two days before the president will deliver his jobs speech to a joint session of the Congress. Is it me, or is this the first time a presidential candidate will have actually stepped forward with more than platitudes and bumper-sticker slogans? Of course, Mr. Romney's proposals remain to be seen. I'm just sayin', I wonder if his proposals will fit on a bumper sticker?

•President Obama faces continual criticism for his job performance and is constantly being beaten up for not having had any real, practical experience that would have helped him in what must be the toughest job in the world. Is this not more than a little redundant? My guess is, if this man is of above-average intelligence (and I think he is) he has surely had his own doubts about whether he was (is) ready for the job. In fact, I would question the mental capacity of any person who steps into the Oval Office and just knows what to do.

•The Congress and the President have been at odds for a very long time. Wonder what might happen if they did not intentionally antagonize one another?

•The 10th anniversary of the dreadful attacks of 9/11 is a week away. One cannot board an airplane without being already under suspicion and treated as a potential terror threat. Can we really say we've learned anything?

•Polls ask whether Americans think the country is still in recession. If the majority says no, does this mean there is no recession?

•America is all aquiver over whether or not Sarah Palin will declare her candidacy for the US presidency. Do we really believe she is better prepared for the job than President Obama was?

•Speaking of which, what makes anyone think Michelle Bachmann is any better prepared to take on the monumental task of being the president?

•Does Rick Perry's belief in creationism really matter?

Close Enough

2011-09-04T08:30:00.000-05:00

Exodus 12:1-14
Matthew 18:15-20

It is often said that "close enough" only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes. A hand grenade does not have to hit its target directly in order to be effective since the shrapnel from the explosion can range as far as 50 feet. Close enough. Although the object of the game in horseshoes is to get the "ringer", it is only necessary to get "close enough" just to win the game; that is, getting closer to the ringer than the opponent. In either case "close enough" will do the job without actually touching the object itself.

When it comes to relationships, however, "close enough" without actually touching the object is inadequate. It's a little like the Facebook "friend" whom we may know through mutual acquaintances but do not actually have an engaging relationship. My friendship count, for instance, is over 400. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure I can actually name even 400 persons I know well enough to call "friend"! Acquaintances? Of course. Colleagues in ministry? Yes. Brothers and sisters in Christ? Absolutely. But friend? Questionable; at least in terms of how Jesus defines His own "friends" by an expressed willingness to surrender one's life (John 15:13-14).

Technology is a wonderful tool to have and to use that can actually enhance whatever task is before us, but it is only a tool ... a means to an end. Since there is no actual, literal, or physical connection, it cannot be the end especially when it comes to human relationships. Take, for instance, Jesus' lesson to us when it comes to dealing with a problem with a church brother or sister (Matthew 18:15). Though we know e-mail did not exist then, the command that comes from Jesus is as valid and for the same reason today: there must be personal, face-to-face interaction in order to convey precisely what must be conveyed. An e-mail to spell out hurt feelings or concerns just will not do it for a number of reasons, not least of which is that written words cannot carry the same thought as a word spoken and expressed. It is one of the many interesting characteristics of American Sign Language in that a hand sign only has its fullest meaning according to one's facial expression and posture. Jesus is very clear: one must get up close and personal.

The Passover is no exception which, of course, carries forward to us today in the Eucharist, the Holy Communion. To "commune" with Christ and with one another is exactly as it suggests: up close and intensely personal - yet very communal ... and necessarily so. We are actually joined together in Christ as we partake of the elements of the Eucharist in the bread and the Cup. It is in this moment when the Church is at its fullest and truest nature. It does not get much closer than to actually ingest these things and thus connect ourselves to our Lord and to one another. There can hardly be anything more intimate and connective than this.

"The blood shall be a sign for you ... when I see the blood, I will pass over you and no plague shall destroy you" (Exodus 12:13).

Clearly we will not be letting any blood anytime soon at the altar of the Lord. There is no more perfect Sacrifice we can make or offer that was not already done perfectly. When Jesus defines His friends - and His own love for His friends - by a willingness to surrender one's life, He is not talking about human sacrifice. In His own case, of course, He is painfully aware of what must come to be but when He is speaking to His disciples - then AND now - He is offering something not literal but even more profound, and it goes much further and deeper than what we drop into the collection plate ... though what we offer in this regard is pretty revealing as well.

The single, most precious resource we have is time. I say this because it has been my experience since long before I became a preacher that people, even faithful Christians, are often much more willing to write a check than they are to give too freely of their time. Too often we have been reduced to an either/or theology by which we have come to believe we can write that check - OR - help do the work. And because we have found ourselves so busy with work, social obligations, and downright selfishness when it comes to our time; clearly it is revealed that of all the resources we have at our disposal, we are far and away much more jealously protective of our time than anything else.

We fail to realize that, as aggressively as we might defend the concept of a "personal" Lord and "personal" salvation, the depth of that salvation and how it is made manifest is in how "up close and personal" we are willing to be with one another, the "least" among us - AND - the Church. The expected behavior and intimate connection of the faithful disciple within the Church is revealed in Matthew's Gospel reading. If we think we have been wronged, we should not go about and slander the one who has wronged us with anyone who will listen.

Gossip and slander are not even "close enough", but Lord how it seems to be the weapon of choice and preferred strategy! And when we spend more time trying to "make our case" to folks who are not even involved in the situation and drum up support AGAINST the offender, what is happening? The relationship that perhaps once existed - the relationship that could perhaps be made even stronger - is ultimately destroyed because of the profound and intentional disconnection. Before the offender has had a chance to explain himself or herself, he or she is already "put out" as a "Gentile or a tax collector" - all by means not of fact but of innuendo. It is not unlike the "collateral damage" wrought by a hand grenade or a bomb. You will likely hit what you meant to hit, but there will be others harmed as well - whether they deserved it or not.

Notice what Jesus is moving toward. His strategy is not so that we can decide for ourselves who is in "the club" or out. The whole move is geared and directed toward intentional restoration of the relationship. It is entirely what our new Membership Care Committee is all about, especially in pursuing those who have fallen away from a relationship with the Church. It is to remind them that the whole idea of Jesus the Christ Himself is RESTORATION, not JUDGMENT ... and certainly not DESTRUCTION!! And we are to go to great lengths until the "offender" is restored and peace has been made - OR - the offender has made it very clear that he or she is not interested in restoring the relationship.

A card or letter (electronic or USPS) is a very nice touch, a means to a noble end; but such means cannot be the end. We must never come to believe a mere attempt is "close enough" because when it comes to the doctrines and theology of the Holy Church and relationships with one another IN Christ - not one another OR Christ - "close enough" without actually touching the object is not close enough. Not by a long shot.

As I have shared in the past the wafer and the juice (or wine) of the Holy Eucharist are not "magic pills". They represent the willingness of Jesus to step forward in our behalf. They represent all Jesus did in our stead. They mean Jesus did what He needed to do. These elements stand for something so mysterious, so deep as to render us in our humility "unworthy" to come forward and yet so profoundly grateful in understanding what had to happen in order to make this Sacrament and our redemption possible. To get "close enough" in the Sacrament of Communion is to be "close enough" to see the Cross and Jesus' most anguished face, "close enough" to hear His painful groans, "close enough" to feel and perhaps even experience His pain, "close enough" to touch His blood-soaked feet. Indeed "close enough" to even care.

Shepherd My People

2011-08-28T08:33:00.000-05:00

Exodus 3:1-15
Matthew 16:21-28

"One aspect of the moral life is not concerned with man's relationship with his fellow beings but with his relationship with animals. Since even the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) show consideration for dumb creatures and commands that they too should be allowed the Sabbath rest ... one expects to find the Talmud also teaching that lesson."

"Indeed the way a man treats animals is an index to his character. 'When Moses shepherded the flocks of Jethro, he kept the old sheep back because of the young ones and let these loose first to feed on the tender grass; then he let the others loose to feed on the grass of average quality; lastly he let the strong ones loose to feed on the tough grass. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Let him who knows how to shepherd the flock, each according to its strength, come and lead My people.'" Everyman's Talmud, Abraham Cohen, pg 235

There is another story in the Talmud that speaks of Moses' heart as well. "A goat kid ran away and Moses pursued it until it came to a tree where there chanced to be a pool of water. The kid stood there to drink and when Moses overtook it he said, 'I did not know you ran away because you were thirsty. You must also be tired.' So he set the kid upon his shoulder and carried it back. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Since you are merciful to the flock of a human being, you shall be the shepherd of My flock, Israel.'"

Is it only a legend that Moses was chosen to lead Israel because he was kind to animals? It could be, but it is more likely that the integrity of Moses' character and goodness of his heart were made manifest in how he treated animals. Such stories passed from generation to generation give life to legends, but it must also be remembered that the Jewish Talmud is much more than a "legal commentary" on Torah; it also contains the "oral traditions", stories that have been passed faithfully from generation to generation according to the mandates of Torah and Moses.

I do not pretend to be a scholar on Jewish literature or scripture and my assessment may be a little overly simplified, but these stories - and others like these - as to Moses' true character reveal much more than what we Christians may have previously known or even considered about Moses. More significantly, I don't think such stories make Moses himself any bigger than he really was because he was still, after all, just a man even if the parting of the Red Sea is probably what we remember first about Moses. Instead we are taught through such writings that there is much more to any one of us than what meets the eye. These stories and legends point to something much bigger than any individual person or humanity as a whole. We are offered a glimpse into the "divine design" that further proves the Lord's plan of deliverance.

As highly revered as Moses is, however, and regardless of whether he is worthy of such reverence is not - or should not - be the point of looking so closely into his life or his character. Clearly the Lord thought very highly of Moses as did Israel. What seems clearer still after such a consideration of stories like these is that even though we have all been endowed with spiritual gifts, we must also have the heart necessary to use these gifts appropriately. Maybe this is the lesson the rabbis sought to teach through these stories. It is not necessarily that Moses had a particular "gift" for shepherding but instead possessed the compassionate heart of a shepherd, one who is charged with the well-being of the flock over and above his own well-being. It may well be that Moses was chosen precisely for this reason even though he also clearly felt inadequate for the job.

So then I often wonder if the reason the Church seems to be faltering and more people are withdrawing from church life AND/OR the Church altogether is because too many of us feel inadequate for the daunting task of being the Church. St. Paul emphasizes spiritual gifts and we can reasonably see that these gifts differ from one person to the next, but the task of "making disciples of Christ for the transformation of the WORLD" is a little overwhelming. It's a big job because it is a big world! So just as Moses must have felt inadequate for what would surely be the biggest thing the world had seen up to that point, maybe it is we are not seriously considering how large a role the Lord would play in our task of "making disciples" - IF - we were to faithfully follow His lead rather than expect the Lord to follow our lead and support our choices.

Notice the exchange between Peter and Jesus (Matthew 16:21-28). Peter surely meant well in his insistence that Jesus must never surrender to those who were intent on destroying Him. Surely Peter believed Jesus could do much more good alive than dead. Surely Peter loved Jesus and only wanted to protect his beloved Friend. And though we might consider that Jesus was a little harsh with Peter - calling him "Satan"?? - Peter and the disciples needed to be reminded in very clear terms that there is ONE road to righteousness - and only one; not several - just One. And this road is much more demanding that simply professing a vague belief; it is the road marked by our willingness to take up our own "cross" - the "cross" that requires our very lives.

There are clearly other alternatives, other much safer and easier choices we can make, but Jesus draws a clear "line in the sand" as to what constitutes the righteous path, the one righteous choice we can make - and that is to follow Him in His life, in His teachings, and even in His death - that is, giving completely of self for the sake of something much greater. It is just as Jesus did at the Cross. He gave up His earthly life for something much greater even than Himself, but He gained Life by freely giving His own mortal life.

For us this is a hard thing to comprehend because we are taught early on - and the Church and our culture even solidify this - that we are to protect our lives at all cost. We don't freely walk into certain neighborhoods because of perceived danger even though we reasonably know there are other lives at stake, innocent victims - mostly young, impressionable children - of a culture that validates the worth of a human being only according to what can be taken from another. They have been culturally conditioned to believe that money is power, and power is what validates a life worth living. They have been convinced through the neglect of the Church that they can only depend on themselves - and that perhaps others must die so they may live.

They lack a shepherd, a true shepherd with a compassionate heart who would disregard his own well-being first for their well-being. These victims know only the shepherd who herds by threats, intimidation, bribery, or the business end of a loaded weapon. These are the shepherds who lead and gather only according to what they can first glean for themselves, and these are the shepherds who will only allow certain "kinds" into their flocks. These shepherds will abandon a flock stranded in a pasture that is used up while they feed on the "good grass" first. And if you think I am speaking exclusively of poverty-stricken drug- or gang-infested neighborhoods, you would be mistaken.

There is not a soul in this town who does not "need" a compassionate, selfless shepherd even though they may not "want" one, but this is entirely beside the point Jesus is making. He is facing an entire world that does not seem to "want" a shepherd even though we reasonably know the "need" is as great now as it was then. This is the call and commission of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Disciples must possess the heart of a shepherd - this is "discipleship" - for the shepherd's heart is the compassionate and sacred heart of the Good Shepherd. It is not simply a choice we Americans get to make - it is the ONLY choice of the righteous ... in the Holy and Blessed name of the Righteous One. Amen.

Shovel-ready jobs: what do we really expect?

2011-08-22T15:28:00.002-05:00

President Obama has promised a major "jobs" speech in September when he returns from vacation and Congress is back in session. In speculation as to what the president may propose, the term "shovel-ready" is floating around again as it was in President Obama's early days when federal stimulus was being proposed as a way to jump-start the economy even though stimulus under GWB clearly did not work. Somehow this president and his Democratic-majority Congress believed the previous stimuli were not sufficient, so they went bigger still. Their intentions were noble, of course (remember "too big to fail"?), but it has rarely been proved that doubling down on a bad bet (artificial manipulation = gov't intervention) is a good way to recover. Whether the stimulus worked or not, I suppose, is a matter of one's perspective and party affiliation though in real numbers, there are still millions of unemployed Americans who do not wish to be unemployed.

Having lost my own job in early 2008 when things began to unravel, the housing bubble was about to burst, and employers were running for cover; I can attest to the reality of how difficult it is to find work. It is more difficult still for those whose specialty may be industry- and/or task-specific and that industry is especially hard-hit. After a couple of months, however, when it became clear I would not find exactly what I was looking for, I began to look in other directions even while keeping an eye on the industry from which I was so unceremoniously dumped. What is worse and more humiliating that this, however, is what happens in the job search.

Another company had been talking to me about a position while I was still employed. Because I was pretty sure job losses were only a matter of time at my place of employment, I began putting out feelers and testing the waters. The position being discussed between me and this other company was a high level management position, and I was led to believe I was among the finalists for the position. At this point there was no offer or guarantee of employment, but we were still talking about the job and the future.

After it became known I was no longer employed, the high-level management position was no longer available nor was the corresponding salary range we had discussed. Suddenly the position and salary now on the table were not even close to what had once been discussed. And the hiring authority was quite blunt: "Your situation has changed. I no longer have to offer you a higher salary because I am not competing for you, but what I do offer you is higher than what you are current receiving."

Good point, of course, and he was perfectly within his right to do what he did, but it became clear that this person was little more than a predator that smells blood and senses weakness. He was ready to pounce and exploit the weakness (my need for a paycheck) to his own advantage. It became clear this person was not to be trusted. The lower level job and salary were offered, but I declined not only because of what this person had tried to do to me but also because I felt the position (and salary) were somehow beneath me. I was not yet that desperate. In the back of my mind, however, I really was that desperate, but I could not allow this man to see it. I was sure that sooner or later this man and his 'modus operandi' would come calling again as it suited him if I were to accept his offer of employment. Again, his perfect right to do so - and my right to stay as far away from him and others like him for as long as I can stand it.

The job search did not get much better. I came to discover that hiring managers - at least those I experienced on the search - are incredibly condescending and downright disrespectful. Some may well be that way because they are just jerks while others may simply lack the maturity necessary for that level of responsibility. Regardless, searching (if begging!) for a new job, trying to sound interested without sounding desperate is a tough act and difficult balance and is perhaps the most humiliating experience of my life. Had it always been this way? I had been with my previous employer 15 years. The few interviews I had with other employers during those 15 years were more like discussions among professionals - all while I was employed and not really looking. I was treated like a human being, an equal, a professional with something substantial to say.

Suddenly unemployed, I was no longer so sought after nor treated so well. During the few interviews for posted positions I did manage to land, I was treated like yesterday's trash rather than as tomorrow's potential. I felt I was treated like a bum who could not hold down a job. Companies decide to open a position and publicly advertise this position, and the HR person acts as though those who dared to apply had quite the nerve disturbing their normal routines, and I was made to feel every ounce of that disdain while trying to smile and remain positive - as all the "experts" suggest. It may well be that I walked out unemployed because I felt the "contest" and had decided I would demand - and accept no less than - fundamental respect. I refused to blink. Besides, if these people are indicative of the corporate culture and personality of that particular company, who would want to sign on for more of the same?

I use these short stories and personal experiences only to make this point (as well as maybe blow off a little pent-up steam??). "Shovel-ready" jobs are not going to be pretty. This country's infrastructure is old and well used. There is a lot of construction and repair work that will require a lot of "shovels". Will all those MBA's we keep hearing about who have been reduced to flipping burgers be "too good" or too qualified for such positions? Will these "shovel-ready" jobs be somehow "beneath" this nation's unemployed workforce when they will be forced to take jobs that may pay well enough but will not be quite what they had hoped or trained for? Indeed will those who receive public assistance be "forced" to take such jobs as they become available, or will they be given the opportunity to opt out?

There is more than meets the eye to such an anticipated "jobs" speech and if this president is going to move beyond the perception that he is no leader, he will have to bring the message home with substance and concrete proposals. No more platitudes. No more accusations against a willful Tea Party. Stand up and stand out, Mr. President. You have the mike.

How Big is Great?

2011-08-21T08:10:00.002-05:00

Exodus 2:1-10
Matthew 16:13-20

Since I was a child I had flights of fancy and fantasy that I was destined for something "great". Exactly what that "great" might be and how it would look was - and still is - a whole other matter, but to a child (at least to me), "great" was driving a big, ol' tractor in a bean field ... or riding around on a big, ol' fire truck ... or moving mountains with a bulldozer, or even driving a "big" truck. To a child, "great" means "big" not only because of sheer size but also because of the impact such things have. We notice "big" and even have to make room for "big", but we don't often realize "big" is not always "great" and "great" does not always have to be "big".

Last Sunday alone is a prime example. I shared a story about an elderly couple who lost everything - and I mean literally EVERYTHING - they owned, including their home, in a recent tornado. On the spur of the moment, a united congregation given an opportunity offered a "great" gift to these folks in predominantly small increments. Each of us as individuals may have wished we could do more as several of you expressed, but we often overlook what happens when we join together in a common purpose. Our gift - which combined made this effort alone "great" - was joined with gifts from other area United Methodist churches. The result? Columbia County United Methodist Christians made an unmistakably "great" impact on the life of a family that surely felt little more than despair only weeks before! Relatively speaking, the gift itself may not be considered so "big" in the grand scheme. The impact, however, will be "great" - especially in the name of our Lord!

It is hard to use Moses' life as an example of anything but "big" because of the great and wondrous things the Lord did through Moses. Moses is still very highly revered in Judaism because he was instrumental in delivering the Lord's Covenant to the Lord's people. Though it was the Lord who freed the people of Israel from bondage and slavery, it was Moses who led the way out. It was Moses who confronted Pharaoh and announced the plagues of judgment against Egypt. It was by Moses' hand that the Red Sea opened wide to allow the people of Israel to escape, and it was by Moses' hand that the sea swallowed up the pursuing Egyptian army. Moses did things "big", at least in the eyes of the people who witnessed these remarkable events. But it was Moses' FAITH through which the Lord acted!

There is no arguing that the Church universal does not enjoy the influence it once had on American society and does not make quite the impact it once made in people's lives. Loss of faith, loss of vision, loss of dedication, loss of humility, loss of integrity in trying to be everything to everyone all combine to make for an institution that has, quite significantly, been reduced to little more than a building on a corner to be open and used only on Sundays - and only for an hour. It is no small thing to consider that for 2000 years the Church has been preaching the Lord's Return and for 2000 years the faithful have watched and waited for such a "great" cataclysmic event, the likes of which can only be imagined by the incomprehensible imagery in The Revelation. And for 2000 years the faithful have watched as evil seems to flourish and continue to prosper in spite of the Bible's clear promise that evil will one day be judged for what it is.

Yet in spite of the losses which seem so "big" numerically, there are pockets of evidence that the Church is still very much the Body of Christ. There are those shining moments when a person finally "gets it" and presents himself or herself - and/or their children - for baptism into the Lord's Covenant and into the community of faith. There are those times when preachers can look out among the congregation and actually see a tiny glimmer of hope in the eyes of someone who has finally made a connection between the reality of the world which is and the future reality of the world that will be. It does not seem like much and it does not happen nearly often enough, but these blessings come in such small doses that should help us to remember that as "great" as our Lord is, He still spoke even to the prophet Elijah in a "still, small voice". It may not have seemed like much at the time, but it was enough for the time. It clearly was not "big" ... but it was "great".

It is always interesting to me that as "big" as Jesus really was through the miracles He performed and the healings by His hands, He intentionally suppressed "great". Peter finally seemed to "get it" when he confessed Jesus as "the Messiah, the Son of the living God", as it is written. According to Jesus, Peter was proclaiming not a human conclusion but a divine revelation; that is, a statement of pure faith in something revealed but not yet fully realized. It does not seem like much as written words on a page and perhaps seems even less when Peter later flees for his life, but the "great" is expressed in what the Lord will do with this proclamation of faith as the foundation upon which the Church, the Body of Christ, will be established not only to keep the "gates of Hades" at bay but to also teach the faith for generations to come; including today ... and beyond.

At any given moment the Church may not seem like much, but this is only because we rely primarily on what we can see with our eyes. We tend to look only at the surface for what is readily evident and fail look deeper at what is to come not according to what we can conceive with our minds but with what the Lord can do with and through our faith, the faith of the Holy Church. If we rely only on our physical senses to inform us and enlighten us, we can still do "big" things that will do some good, perhaps a lot of good.

$1000 is a lot of money that can go a long way and, like a basket with a few loaves of bread and some fish, will be a blessing to someone who has nothing. Each would be "big" within a particular context, but each would also play out very quickly because of their inherent, physical limitations. $1000 is only $1000 and five loaves of bread is only five loaves; once they're gone, they're gone. However, if these things are channeled through and offered to the Lord in faith, the "great" impact each will have will be in accordance not with our human sense of compassion but in accordance with the trust we place first in the Lord and HIS compassion! In other words, we offer "big" as a community of people, but offered through a community of faith it is the Lord's Mighty Hand that makes it "great".

This is the foundational faith divinely imparted to Peter. He did not draw this conclusion based only on what he had already seen with his own eyes or experienced by his own hands. It is rather the faith he has experienced much more profoundly; it is the faith that goes far beyond Peter's own proclamation. It is the faith that transcends "personal salvation" that, according to Jesus' own words, will build AND sustain His Body the Church long after He is gone. It is the declaration of establishment not of an "institution" but of a "movement" that will endure through the ages. It is the faith that will call many who experience it forward - AND - will drive many away who refuse to look deeper.

The Church is no doubt strengthened by the active participation of people - and - the Church's impact is diminished when people fall away. There is indeed strength in numbers. It must be noted AND embraced, however, that the Church as the Body of Christ is perfected only in faith. For it is in faith, big or small, that the Church is made "great".

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Enduring Remnant

2011-08-15T14:11:00.000-05:00

Romans 11:1-12
Matthew 15:21-28

"Separation of Church and State" has become something of a battle cry for non-Christians and even some Christian groups. The phrase itself is not found in the US Constitution but is actually Thomas Jefferson's expression of how the establishment clause of the 1st amendment "builds a wall of separation between Church and state", as he wrote in a letter to a CT Baptist association, because the Constitution prohibits the federal government from promoting or prohibiting religion. In other words, the Church will rise or fall on her own merits and not by any exercise of or by the US Congress. Mr. Jefferson was telling the CT Baptist association he would not intervene nor ask the Congress to intervene in whatever issues they were having with their own state legislature. And judging by the content of the Baptist association letter to Jefferson, it appears they were demanding civil "laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ." The letter itself, however, does not specify exactly what they were seeking.

We can interpret Jefferson's words any number of ways, but the general understanding has usually been that there is no "official" American church or religion. It has historically been taken for granted that Christianity is, at the very least, the "dominant" religion of the United States because the majority of Americans were - and are - Christians, but we are Christians not because the Constitution or the Congress says we can be. We are Christians because our Holy God and Father "so loved the world that He gave His only Son". We are Christians because we believe this Eternal Truth and have chosen to respond in a positive way. We are Christians because we believe this Gospel is for ALL of humanity. I hope.

Recently the governor of Texas participated in a revival called "The Response". He not only helped to plan the event, he was arguably the star attraction though there were others. The whole point of the revival was to awaken our nation to the reality that we may be under judgment because of what we are surrounded by: wars, famine, poverty, injustice, unconscionable debt, fear, and uncertainty to name only some. For his part Gov. Perry read Scripture, shared a few words, and then led the gathering in prayer which included a prayer for the president. The event called the faithful to intense prayer and fasting, those means of grace so embraced by Methodism as necessary to a more intimate relationship with the Lord to discern His will. And people protested the gathering outside the stadium where this prayer service was being held.

The protests centered on the fact that a public official - Gov. Perry - had actively promoted the event. It is said the governor used the letterhead of his office to encourage the people of Texas to attend. Because the gathering was uniquely Christian, the protesters insisted a specific religion was being promoted by "the state" to the exclusion of non-Christians even though "all" were invited to attend. Additionally, the motive of the governor has been called into question because he was widely believed to be a potential presidential candidate who was only using this event as a springboard to his possible candidacy in an effort to appeal to a particular voting demographic.

That non-Christians protested the event is not surprising. It is rather the extraordinary number of Christians who chose to protest the event outside the arena rather than go inside and participate in the prayers. That a state official participated is not the problem because even state officials enjoy the same rights to (or from) religion as the rest of us - as afforded our president who sponsored and participated in the Islamic Iftar at the White House, the dinner celebrated to break the fast of Ramadan (been done since the days of President Clinton). Rather the problem is that a substantial number of Christians were near enough to participate with fellow Christians in prayer but chose to protest instead.

Are we so far gone as a secular society that we would disallow a state official from active participation in a public worship venue? Have we become so cynical that we would question the motives of any Christian who happens to hold public office and chooses to gather in a public place to worship - AND - actively participate? Are we so judgmental as to suggest that any public official who attends anything other than the "respectable" hour of Sunday worship to be suspect?

The answer to all the above is a resounding "yes". We are that "far gone", we are that "cynical", and we are that "judgmental" because we have become entirely too wrapped up in the affairs of "state" nearly to the exclusion of "church". The "state", you see, is where our "real life" is. The "state" takes money from our wages without our consent, the "state" tells us where we can or cannot go and how fast or slow we must go, the "state" issues us a license to participate in the holy sacrament (or ordinance) of matrimony (effectively giving us 'permission' to be wed), and the "state" is coming dangerously close to usurping parental authority as to what our children can or must do.

And we seem to be ok with all this. Oh, we let slip the occasional moan and groan about our tax liability or some other social issue as it particularly offends us personally, but we make deliberate choices each and every day to pay homage to the "state" while the "church" gets whatever is left over, including our time. We have learned, ironically through the "respectable" church", to give heed to our "real" master (the "state") who governs our daily living by its own rules and regulations. By the time we give this master our time and attention and money, we are just too spent to offer much else - especially when we are not "forced" to. After all, we believe ourselves to be "free".

Do you ever notice that the life of the typical Christian does not come close to the hunger and devotion and tenacity of the Canaanite woman of Matthew (15:21-28)? Even by Jesus' own words, He came "only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", the chosen. By Jesus' own words, there is an implied sense of "entitlement" that is reserved exclusively for the chosen of the Lord even though the Gospel accounts make it very clear that the faithful see Jesus as, at the very least, a point of curiosity; at most, highly suspect. Very few pursue Jesus so relentlessly as the Canaanite woman or the lepers or others who found themselves with a particular need at a particular time. Indeed the Canaanite woman is concerned primarily with her demon-possessed daughter.

Would she have come to Jesus otherwise? It is impossible to say except by what is implied. She was a Canaanite, possibly a pagan who worshipped many gods - that is, if she worshipped at all. It is reasonable to believe she would not have bothered with Jesus at all except that she had probably heard rumors about this "Messiah" who was miraculously healing people. So to get something only for herself and/or those whom she loved, she was willing to pursue this "Son of David", the lineage of which had once conquered that land and united the Kingdom. It was worth a shot anyway. For the sake of her beloved daughter, there was no price too high - even personal pride and humility in her expressed willingness to be content with divine "scraps" from the Table of Righteousness. She knew she was not among the "chosen", but she was nevertheless hoping for a little compassion and mercy.

Where is the "church" in all this? How does the "church" respond? By word of the disciples, devoted followers of Jesus who went to the Lord not on the needy woman's behalf but on their own behalf: 'Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us'. She is annoying us, she is bothering us, she is making us very uncomfortable ... she is putting at risk what is rightfully reserved for us. Reckon?

Here's the thing, though. The Canaanite woman IS the "enduring remnant". No, she is likely not a Jew and she is certainly not a Christian, but she is the epitome of what the Lord desires! She hungrily, relentlessly, tenaciously, and yet humbly, pursues the Lord. She does not "demand" nor expect a place at the Table; she will settle for the table scraps, blessings sufficient for the day. And it must not go without notice that the "church" (the disciples) found her at the very least annoying, and perhaps at most a potential threat to what they believed was theirs.

The faith and hunger of the Canaanite woman is the faith to which the Church is called. This is the confessing faith of St. Peter, the very foundation of the Holy Church. This is the "remnant" that will remain, the ones devoted to the Lord, the ones hungry for the Lord, the ones who relentlessly pursue the Lord AT ALL COST! This is the faith that will hope and settle for the table scraps but will be offered so much more on that glorious Day of the Lord when He returns for His faithful, the remnant that endured to the end. For you see, the Covenant of the Lord through Christ is that of faith, not of lineage, and certainly not of empty religious practices. It is one of tenacious endurance and not of denomination.

Let us be found worthy. Let us be found enduring. Let us be found wanting. And let us be found by Him ... waiting and watching. Amen.

Where We Go from Here

2011-08-09T10:39:00.000-05:00

One of the most profoundly insightful statements made during the 2008 Republican presidential primary debates was, in my humble opinion, made by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. One of the questions posed of the Republican candidates centered on the war front in Iraq and whether the US should ever have become involved, and the usual "blame game" and "finger-pointing" soon took over the discussion. When it came to be Mr. Huckabee's turn to speak, he said there was no point in going backward to determine who erred and what mistakes were made. The whole point, he said, is that "this is where we are" and this is the reality we must deal with. Mr. Huckabee essentially said it is up to genuine leaders to determine where we go from that point, for the solutions are not behind us; they are ahead of us and must come from within the present reality.

Though I cannot say I was too high on Mr. Huckabee at the time, it occurs to me during this current wrangling about the S&P credit rating downgrade that this is the wisdom, insight, and sense of leadership sorely lacking in Washington right now - actually across the country, judging by the feedback from some of the many news articles in which Democrats are blaming the Tea Party for the whole mess, Republicans are blaming the Democrats ... and NO ONE is stepping up to the plate, including our president. Everyone is reflecting on what has happened, and very few are thinking about what must happen from this point.

Common wisdom insists we cannot afford to be ignorant of history lest we are "doomed to repeat it", yet we must also recognize that the only way we can change the present reality is by the forward steps we take from within that reality. We must be mindful of the missteps made that got us where we are and learn from the many mistakes that helped to bring us to this point, of course, but it is futile to "blame" any one person or political party. The reality is: here we are; and the question is: where do we go from here? Backward into a fruitless past? Forward into a future with a common plan? Or hopelessly stuck in the present, spinning our wheels, refusing to take responsibility, and failing to realize EVERYONE from top to bottom has had a hand in the current reality. In some form or fashion every American adult can - and must - claim ownership of where we are. Only then can we take concrete steps into the future.

To say we are all "in this together" seems hopelessly cheesy and not conducive to forward thinking but before we can speak of "shared sacrifice", we must first share responsibility. Only then can we move forward. Only then will we be able to call upon all American citizens to put their best foot forward, recognize we are not "led by" but "represented in" Washington by fellow citizens whom we chose for ourselves, and offer through our representatives what we are willing to do based not on what mistakes were made in the past by the "other" guy or "other" party but based entirely on what we are willing to endure moving forward. S&P's total analysis of our credit downgrade (and possible further downgrade in the near future) considered, in part, our lack of willingness to work together cooperatively. Sadly, however, S&P can clearly see that the mood of the nation even now is not so willing to cooperate or endure any sacrifice.

We want what we want, we want what we believe we have a "right" to, and we want what the law says we are "entitled" to. That the government had to borrow $1.3 trillion to finance nearly a third of the total federal budget is, in the minds of many, "not my problem. I was promised ____, and I will settle for no less than _____." There is no sympathy among the American populace that the US government, which is "us", with a total cumulative debt in excess of $14 trillion simply cannot deliver on promises made in the past. "It is the Congress' fault, so it is the Congress' problem", we say. So S&P and other credit agencies can clearly see that the people of the United States are a poor credit risk. How's that for reality?

Like the family budget that is getting squeezed in today's economy, the US government (that is, "we the people") must first realize that unlimited borrowing or doubling down (spending even more) is not sustainable action. Priorities will have to be determined according to need and necessity, not entitlement. Every American citizen will have to realize we are owed nothing from the federal government outside of what is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution. Those who can do without must be prepared to do so while those who are disabled or otherwise cannot do for themselves must not live in fear of falling through the cracks.

With the election season coming up, voters must be very careful to wade through the mindless platitudes, empty rhetoric, and pointless finger-pointing that have been the mark of American electoral politics, and demand of all political candidates a clear vision of the future with concrete steps into that vision. We do not need to be told what has already happened because we have already endured the past, and we do not need to be told what candidates will "undo" or "not do". If these candidates want to be leaders and want to be entrusted with a position of leadership, they must be required to act like leaders and not followers of any partisan mob.

Above all else, voters must come to realize we are not electing a "messiah". No single candidate will have all the answers, but what can be clear to us is that if a candidate spends most or all of his or her time campaigning on the faults of other candidates or officeholders, it is probably a sure bet that candidate has no vision of the future but would actually fit right in to the status quo. Clearly, this is not what the future requires because "status quo" has no future. We must listen carefully to what will be put forth in the coming months with the sure and certain knowledge that a simple stroke of a pen or a silver bullet or a magic pill will not solve our problems. Our course of action must be led by wisdom, earnest reflection, and faith in something great than ourselves.

If your candidate of choice can be defined by a cheesy bumper-sticker slogan (such as "change you can believe in" or "cut, cap, and balance"), it is probably a sure bet your candidate does not have much more to say than that. The proof is in the past.

Resentment: the evil root

2011-08-07T08:14:00.000-05:00

Genesis 37:1-4, 12-28
Matthew 20:1-16, 20-22a

In the continuing saga that is the American government there is one dominant, recurring theme that seems to be the stumbling block of responsible government: entitlement. And I would suggest few know what it really means to be "entitled" by the text book definition which is: if the Congress creates criterion and one fits that criteria, one is by law "entitled". We often forget, however, it is entitlement "bestowed"; which is to say we are not born into a state of federal entitlement.

To be entitled to something does not necessarily mean the "something" inherently belongs to us as a "right" we are born with. Webster's defines "entitle" as "to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something". A thesaurus search will turn up words like, "authorize", "allow", and "qualify", to name only a few. In other words, there must be an authorizing entity that determines whether or not we are "entitled" to anything. Even the US Declaration of Independence appropriately recognizes the appointive authority of the "Creator" for humanity's entitlement to "unalienable rights"; rights "bestowed" by divine authority.

None of this is to suggest anyone is or is not "entitled" to anything from the state, and I certainly do not intend to get bogged down by mindless politics or even a civil discussion of public policy, frankly because I don't think civility in politics is possible any longer. It only occurs to me that in watching the news these past few weeks and reading opinion columnists, "experts" of every stripe, civilian "bloggers", and the like, there is a heavy cloud of "resentment" on all levels of our alleged "civilized" society. We generally agree the system is out of control and we're ok with "spending cuts" in order to make government more efficient, but we are NOT ok with any spending cuts that might involve that to which we are "entitled"; that is, cut the "other guy" who is somehow - at least in our minds - less worthy of equal consideration.

In spite of how vested we may be in the federal system as Americans, we must remember we are, first and foremost, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Our Promise is yet to be. In spiritual terms we are only "residents" of the United States because although we are subject to the man-made "law of the land" which can be changed, we are also subject to the Divine Law that comes directly from the mouth of the Living God and cannot be changed. The Lord alone established a standard of conduct, behavior, and faith that separates His faithful from everyone else - we as His people are "set apart" as it is written, not to be "like everyone else" - and that standard has remained unchanged for thousands of years and is not subject to human scrutiny. Reflection, yes; but not to be challenged because of the Divine Authority from which it comes.

Yet because of how heavily vested we are in the federal system, especially those who have earned or paid their way into that system, any talk about "sharing", "redistributing", "reforming", or, worse, "cutting" any of these programs we are by law "entitled" to causes all kinds of problems, all of which can be traced back to the most base of human emotions, the root from which the fruits of greed, anger, and hatred spring forth: resentment. Suddenly it is not about what we may or may not be entitled to or what has been promised to us; it becomes more about those who are overtaxing that same "entitlement" that might somehow threaten what we believe we have been "guaranteed". And we resent the notion of "shared sacrifice" in a $3.5 trillion federal budget for which $1.3 trillion had to be borrowed because 60% of that total budget insists we are "entitled", from top to bottom, in some form or fashion.

The parallel I am trying to draw between the vineyard workers (Mt 20:1-16) and those of us today living on a "promise" from Uncle Sam is admittedly not entirely fair because the "landowner" in the parable is not a government official and the vineyard does not represent any government. The workers are receiving wages based on the landowner's willingness - and ability - to pay. The "landowner" is the Lord, and the "vineyard" is the Kingdom. Each of the workers is invited into the "vineyard" not according to what is "owed" them but rather according to what one is "entitled" to; and each is "entitled" only by virtue and authority of the "landowner" ... and no other.

We must not overlook the fact that the "landowner", in today's terms and culture, would probably stand to be sued by that first group of workers who had been invited in according to mutual terms agreed upon. The workers were completely at the mercy of the landowner and his word that each would receive a denarius upon completion of the work. In today's terms those workers coming in later should have - and would have - received less because they did not put in the hours, but the deal for them was the same as for the early workers; not an hourly wage but a set reward, a specific PROMISE for giving the "landowner" what he asked - according to His terms and not ours. It is not about the landowner - our Lord - being unfair in any sense. Jesus is reminding us of how generous our Holy Father truly is.

So the parable is not about fair wages or human labor standards. It is about the Kingdom of Heaven, the Master whose invitation is the ONLY way in, and the gratitude of those who are invited in not according to individual demands of what is owed but according to the generosity and benevolence of the One who invites us in - by "furnishing us with proper grounds" - that is, His Love and His Righteousness - for "seeking or claiming" not what we are "owed" but what we are offered. We must also take note of the "judgment", the indictment against those early workers who, though promised a specific rate of pay and getting exactly what they had been promised, grumbled because they were minding someone else's business instead of their own; questioning the Master's judgment, "judging" the worthiness of the "johnnys-come-lately" who were - at least in their eyes - not as worthy ... forgetting it was the Master's RIGHT to offer whatsoever He would choose to offer; irrespective of our perceived "right" to receive.

When we come to believe we are "owed" something - anything, regardless of circumstances - we lose an important part of what it means to be a disciple of Christ. There must not be a day to pass in which we are not consciously aware of what it took to free us - and it is our spiritual obligation to remain in a constant state of gratitude - mindful that there is only one Promise that will endure beyond the grave, mindful that a grateful heart takes each day, each moment, even each dollar as a gift to be enjoyed and shared. A heart filled with resentment is a heart filled nearly to overflowing with anger, with jealousy, with greed, with spite; misplaced entitlement. A resentful heart believes it is "owed" something and forgets that humanity's word - in general terms - CANNOT LAST.

In order for the Church to survive these uncertain times, times in which many are very afraid and perhaps have every right to be afraid, the Church must stand up not as a collection of Americans fighting for government entitlements - essentially leading the fearful to Uncle Sam for relief instead of to the Lord for Life - but the Church must stand for the Lord, for the Gospel, for the invitation humanity receives not by what we have done but by what HE has done. Not by what we are "owed" but by what the Lord has chosen to offer.

But if we are going to spend our time deciding who gets what and fighting and clawing our way to the front of the line so that we will "get ours" first, we will - according to Jesus - turn to find Him choosing from the end of the line, taking for Himself "the last", choosing perhaps to leave those at the front according to what they desired more. "For the last will be first and the first last because many are called but few are chosen."

Cynically Idealistic

2011-08-04T09:20:00.000-05:00

Acts 2:38-47
Matthew 14:13-21

Our esteemed Congress is still playing fiscal "chicken" not only with the White House but also with one another. They claim it's all about leadership and taking responsibility for doing the "right" thing, but the truth is it is about who will blink first. Each side is blaming the other for the mess we're in, and each side is accusing the other of "trying to destroy the country". To them it is not about who is responsible; it is entirely about who is to blame and how to make us afraid of the future if the "other side" has its own way. This is the ONLY way you and I even factor into this debacle. It is little wonder that for years and to this day, public approval of the Congress is running at less than 20% polled. This means 80% of the voting public has little or no confidence in the Congress as a whole.

Some say we need more government control as a means of protecting the lower caste from the upper crust. I agree because it is easy to see commercial preference not for the "right" thing but rather the "profitable" thing regardless of who gets hurt. Others insist the government has too big a piece of American life as it is and is only sustaining generations of "need" and "dependence". I agree. But for all that any government CAN do, there is still only so much any human institution can do. We would all do well to embrace that reality; however big or small a government is, human government IS NOT the answer to the human dilemma.

In the miracle of the loaves and the fishes (Matthew 14:13-21) and in the idealistic community of faith as portrayed in Acts 2:38-47, the government has no role. People who were not getting enough of their "daily bread" were able to go to "the church" (the body of believers, not the lifeless institution) where they found grateful hearts not only willing to share however much or little they had - but eager to share all they had. It was not about "taking" from the rich and giving to the poor. My guess is those who chose to share what they had were probably not among the "upper" levels of society. Yet there seemed to be plenty because grateful hearts were gladdened by far more than an extra loaf of bread - because much more than mere hunger was at stake. Still is.

To gain a better understanding of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes and how it may speak to us today, it is important to be aware of events leading into the story. Herodias had demanded from Herod the head of John the Baptist "on a platter" (Mt 14:8). Because Herod had sworn an oath to give Herodias whatever she might ask because her dancing had so pleased him, he was honor-bound to oblige her demand not simply because he had said it but because he was heard by others who had gathered to celebrate his birthday.

Herod had painted himself into a corner. Worse that the potential outcome for executing an innocent man, however, Herod was more concerned with how he would be immediately perceived by the others; weak, not good for his word, not "in charge", and thus "vulnerable". It was not a matter of what was right; it was a matter of what was expeditious and what might make him look good. In other words, Herod - even at the expense of John's life - refused to "blink".

So when word reached Jesus about what had happened to John, He "withdrew" in a boat to be alone. By how the account is written in Matthew the crowd had also heard about "it" (assuming "it" was Herod's execution of John the Baptist), so they followed Jesus. It is very likely John the Baptist had a lot of followers among this crowd, many of whom had reason to believe they were next, so they also had every reason to flee. If Herod could do what he did to John the Baptist, popular as John likely was, then Herod could do it to anyone he chose when the mood struck him. And if history is any indication, Herod did exactly that.

We could imagine the uncertainty and anguish this mass of people must have been feeling; unsure about tomorrow, uncertain about what "the state" may choose to do next, and they feeling substantially powerless to do anything about it. If there was ever a moment when salvation would mean the most, it was then - and perhaps even now. There is no greater "shackle" than to live in fear and uncertainty. There is no greater sense of bondage than when one would realize that one's life is in the hands of another, particularly one to whom human lives are little more than pawns to be played for political purposes; to appear "strong" in the face of potential adversaries.

So because these people are fleeing and perhaps afraid, standing on the shore and feeling substantially "pinned" with nowhere to go and with no comfort to be found and not knowing which way to turn, Jesus returned to the shore. Having "compassion" as only Jesus can, He came ashore and healed the sick among them. It is fair to say they probably had nowhere else to go. Though they may not have been literally homeless, they surely felt substantially helpless. Hopeless. Trapped. Sick with worry about their future, perhaps, and getting hungry besides. And perhaps as well - fearful of going home under the political circumstances.

So we start with five loaves of bread and two fish. In John's account (6:1-14) there was a boy nearby who had the loaves and the fish, but Matthew does not offer this detail. Whether or not there was specifically a boy with this bread and fish, however, is not nearly as important as realizing someone had the bread and fish. Matthew insinuates this bread and fish were among the disciples themselves when they said "we only have ...", but even this is not as important as acknowledging our starting point: five loaves of bread and two fish. So we can easily imagine the disciples' response when Jesus instructed them to feed the masses rather than send them away! It is likely the same response you or I would each give under similar circumstances.

There are a couple of ways we can navigate this story. One, we can attribute to Jesus' divine power making the bread and fish multiply sufficiently so that there is enough for over 5000 hungry people, each "individual" taking his or her fill with no regard for the person sitting next to them. And as they take one, two "magically" reappear. OR we can look upon a community that has formed out of necessity and a shared sense of commonality. I choose the latter because I think there is a colossal miracle, given my level of practical cynicism, in each person taking only enough to get by and not choosing to gorge themselves instead. After all, it is very hard to tell when and where the next meal will come from. It would be a miracle if no one "horded" for themselves for fear of tomorrow.

In practical terms, then, because "someone" had 5 loaves of bread and two fish it is not unreasonable to assume there must have been others who also had some bread and some fish. It is not unreasonable to believe that from what each had, they took only what they needed and then perhaps shared what they had with the "common pot" so there would be enough for everyone, as in Acts. A community, specifically a community of faith, was being formed with the Son of God as the nucleus; and each man, woman, and child had something in common. The "state" was making them afraid and giving them no reason to hope or to trust, and the Lord was proving to them there was nothing to be afraid of ... and every reason to have hope!

In that moment of community, salvation was as abundant as the bread and the fish as evidenced by the remarkable collection of leftovers. Even if only for a moment, each man, woman, and child was released from the incredible bondage that had only moments before completely engulfed, enslaved, and perhaps incapacitated them. They were free, and they were filled. Within the community of faith and by the mighty hand and heart of the Lord our God ... and no other.

The Iconic Cross

2011-07-27T10:07:00.000-05:00

The American Atheists group has filed suit in New York state court demanding the removal of the crossbeam "Cross" that was left standing at the WTC after the 9/11 attack, demanding that these beams be permanently removed from the Memorial site as "an impermissible mingling of church and state", according to CNN. The cross was moved back to the Memorial from a nearby church, was blessed by the priest who ministered to rescue workers during the recovery period, and has become an iconic part of the site itself.

It is said that this cross was not constructed after the attack but was actually a small part of the structure that did not fall with the rest of the building. There were literally thousands of these crossbeams all up and down the WTC but at the ground level, this is one portion of the building that remained. Because it is in the shape of a cross, or perhaps because it was blessed by a priest, the American Atheists insist it must not be a part of the Memorial because of what the "Cross" (and not this particular crossbeam) represents.

To remove religion from this discussion is probably necessary though not likely because of the unique shape of this particular portion of the structure that did not fall. That it happens to be in the shape of the iconic "Cross" may or may not be a divine miracle, but it still stands for something profound. It still stands for a people who cannot be destroyed. It stands for a remnant of faith that humanity will persevere in spite of humanity's centuries-long attempts to annihilate the human race - or at least those with whom we disagree or just don't like.

One should not expect the American Atheists to let go of this court fight because atheism in and of itself is not real. They are not benign. By what is posted on their website they claim an allegiance to the US Constitution, but the tone is clearly anti-religious. There is a profound lack of respect for persons of faith (maybe even Christians specifically) even as they demand respect. The arguments made for the removal of the cross (beams) are clearly anti-God (one must read the comments very carefully) even though they insist it is only a constitutional matter of separation of Church and state.

Is it only the shape itself that is so maddening to the American Atheists? Would they insist, then, that another method of construction be employed to ensure there are no "cross" beams included in the construction of government buildings? What is their fight about? By the words of the Constitution itself, the inclusion of this crossbeam at the Memorial is not a government "endorsement" of religion but is rather a "respect" for what already exists: the remnant of a building that was not "totally" brought down by those who attacked us. A building that was destroyed but standing for a people who were not annihilated.

The more profound meaning of the steel beams for all Americans is not "The Cross" that stood in spite of humanity's best effort at destruction. Rather it is the crossbeam and remnant representing a people who will not be annihilated, fortitude in the endurance of the American ideal, and the hope that is always before us even in the midst of smoke, ashes, and death. It represents a determination that our enemies may strike and strike hard, but they will ultimately never be able to finish a fight they clearly brought upon themselves. The American Atheists would do well to heed the same warning.