A group of United Methodist clergy, including the appointed pastor, announced recently they will be conducting same-sex unions at Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Washington DC in clear defiance of United Methodist Church principles (splitting hairs over whether it is church “law”) and – in my humble opinion – what is clearly written in Scripture. The Church’s prohibition seems clear enough, but the DC city council voted to issue licenses to same-sex couples. It seems Dumbarton is responding more to Caesar’s call and lead and is, in effect, separating itself from union with the United Methodist Church by its clearly defiant, in-your-face act of … what? Civil disobedience? Can’t be that because the civil authorities have issued their own “ok”; hence, perhaps, the unfortunate clergy decision at Dumbarton.
Many would hope we can have a calm, reasonable discussion about such church and social matters, but it seems to have been made clear more than once over many a General Conference that such discourse is not possible and will not be possible because liberals clearly have a curious understanding of what it means to be “set apart” as a people of faith. There is too much name-calling, finger-pointing, slander, and downright blasphemy for there to be anything among so-called “united” Methodists to come close to “holy conferencing”.
So I sit here wondering where that leaves me as a United Methodist clergy. Should I waste time writing further objections that non-biblical, social Christians will dismiss as “antiquated” and narrow-minded anyway (acknowledging the certain death of “holy conferencing”), should I resolve to simply ignore it in the vain hope that it will pass soon enough, or shall I continue to march in faith AND in love in helping my own congregation deal with it?
It will be a little of all three. There are numerous biblical arguments against such worldly religion that speak not only to the disobedience but also speak as clearly to my chosen responses. Antiquated though the Scripture may be in terms of when they were written, the eternal lessons coming from the Eternal Father are still His – that is, IF the Holy Bible is the inspired word of the Lord and if the Lord has not somehow changed His mind. Ignoring something has never made it go away, and the Dumbarton decision is just one in a long line of several similar decisions all of which clearly indicate this is no isolated incident and that the battle for the soul of the United Methodist Church is raging still and will get worse. Finally, I serve a rather conservative congregation, most of whom have expressed concern over the direction of the United Methodist Church and continue to wonder about their own place within the Methodist Body of Christ. For these and for many others it is not a matter of who will be asked – or forced – to leave but, rather, when the departure must take place. Nothing seems clearer.
In more than one instance Jesus seems clear to His disciples that the world will hate us, beat us, persecute us for His name’s sake. Why? Because we must not be like them. This separation, this being “set apart” surely has its roots in the Exodus and in the Law. We must identify ourselves not by mere affiliation to an institution and certainly not a culture that is here today but will be gone tomorrow but by unmistakable submission to the Word of the Lord. He promises salvation to all who endure to the very end. So who is being hated and persecuted and beaten? The homosexuals? Because the Church does not – cannot - recognize a union between persons of the same gender without making up new ideas that are clearly not consistent with Scripture? Are these the persecuted ones? To hear our liberal brethren tell it, I and those who agree with me are the ones casting stones, passing judgment, and contributing to the hateful atmosphere that has done substantial physical harm to homosexuals. And these accusations come even as Scripture is being quoted with no commentary. Just plain words that seem abundantly clear but apparently only to some.
So where to start? Since direct scriptural quotes have made no dents and since very nearly all Christians can be accurately accused of “cafeteria” Christianity, quoting from Leviticus or St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans has become redundant. Besides, what is really at stake here? I and countless others have long maintained that homosexuality is not the “mother of all sins” but is merely a symptom of a much greater spiritual sickness. The issue at stake goes much deeper than homosexual conduct. Truly, the matter at hand is much more sinister than many would like to believe. Indeed, the Church is under direct attack - from within.
In the very beginning, according to Christian tradition and as it is written, humanity was created by God for God – not the other way around. And in the very beginning man was created to commune with God. Along the natural course of events, that communion was violated by man’s willful act of disobedience. As a result of that willful disobedience, man could no longer exist in the same company as God. Since Paradise was God’s domain with humanity living there at God’s leisure, disobedient humanity had to go. Overly simplified, of course, but this is the so-called Fall.
Skip ahead to ancient Egypt. Israel has been overtaken and enslaved by the Pharaoh, and in their captivity they cry out. The Lord heard their cries and called Moses to shepherd His people out of the bonds of slavery, out of Egypt, out of that culture, out of that society. A key element of the story of the Exodus is the substantial component of leaving Egypt rather than staying, being called out and set apart as a “holy” and “priestly” nation. This component is not unlike what the scholar and theologian Walter Brueggemann suggests relative to the contemporary Church: The contemporary American church is so largely enculturated to the American ethos of consumerism that it has little power to believe or to act (The Prophetic Imagination, pg 1).
From the very beginning there has been a clear dividing line between holiness and worldliness. Now the United Methodist Church as well as the Episcopal and Lutheran churches are trying to have their cake and eat it by dismissing whole centuries of theological reality by flippantly suggesting, by human intellect rather than spiritual wisdom, that “it’s not really what it means”.
Once we cross that line and finally and utterly dismiss Holy Scripture as “irrelevant” or “antiquated” and decide for ourselves what is and is not “relevant” as we strive to be popular with the dominant culture, our base and foundation will have been lost and we will be as far separated from the Father – rather than “set apart” from the world – as we could possibly be.
The Church must still be a voice but a Divine Voice rather than a cultural one. I just hope it’s not too late.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Dark Side
Luke 19:28-40
Putting together several dictionary and online sources, the summarized definition of a “Christian” is this: one who professes belief in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ; one who is a member of a Christian denominational church. While this cannot be said to be an exhaustive search result, it does speak substantially to what being a “Christian” is about: discipleship; a journey that begins but does not end in a single moment. Being a Christian is, like love itself, an intentional act of one’s will. It is in no way “incidental” but is, rather, a deliberate and chosen way of life marked by perseverance, constancy, integrity, and faith.
Compare this to the definition of secular humanism: A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth; a cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns.
Though the values may seem similar on the surface as they pertain to the worth of the human person, there are still fundamental differences between the Christian and the humanist (and no, one cannot be both). One has foundational “rules” and values that are not subject to review or revision, despite apparent evidence to the contrary. The other’s “rules” and values shift from one generation to the next. For Christians, this means acknowledging the sacred value of the life of the human person, a value that cannot be measured, marked, quantified, or qualified except in holy terms; sanctity, of sacred worth meaning that the value of the human person is according to the Lord’s desire and not ours or society’s.
The humanist measure of human value, on the other hand, is assigned by society and is determined from one generation to the next according to one’s usefulness to the dominant culture. The set value is determined from generation to generation and fluctuates to accommodate a very fickle human race that may value a certain attribute today and then find it completely useless tomorrow. One must then be prepared to “keep up” with the constant and undefined changes in values and social mores or risk being labeled a social liability rather than a cultural asset.
Think in terms of how the Church as a whole is typically regarded today and compare that to 20-30 years ago, and it is easy to see how values change from generation to generation and how the Church in general has shifted its values from the sacred to the more humanist. Once, the Church stood as the believable Body of Christ; now it seems to be little more than an unbelievable “wet blanket” that gets in the way of “real life”. How can an institution that promotes Life be considered anything less than the “Life” of the party??
The Lord alone knows the answer, but humans – perhaps especially Christians - will bust a hump trying to figure out how to keep up to the point of compromising his own integrity in a vain effort to “be popular” to the point of moving from one church to another to follow a charismatic or popular preacher or a particular program … or, worse, dismissing the fellowship of believers in church and Bible study altogether.
Clearly Christian priorities have shifted. Once, it was unthinkable to miss church; now it is simply a matter of mood or something more appealing. Once, an unborn child held promise; now such a child can be regarded as a threat to a promising future. Once, homosexuality was a sin; now it is “lifestyle”. The humanist list of shifting priorities is endless and strangely enough, the Church in many instances has even jumped on this humanist bandwagon in a vain effort to be “relevant” or “popular” or to “fit in”. And the world is laughing, not WITH us but AT us.
This fickle behavior could very well mark the day when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, that moment many refer to as the “Triumphal Entry”. The Gospels differ slightly in how Jesus was received and by whom, but it can be said that without this particular moment Jesus still had throngs of followers besides the Twelve – for the time being. Luke says “people” threw their cloaks on the road and that “the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God …”
Disciples. Followers of Jesus, students of the New Testament, but not necessarily believers in the New Covenant of the Lord God. Sometimes things turn ugly. Sometimes things stop going the way we believe, expect, or demand they should. Sometimes humanist values and social pressure become overwhelming. And like the disciples of Jesus’ day, we abandon that which was once considered “absolute” in favor of that which is trendy and popular for the moment but clearly will not last. Unfortunately, we don’t always see or acknowledge that until it’s too late.
Triumphal Entry, indeed. Only there was no triumph, no apparent victory. Nothing was overcome, no one was chased out of town … except for most of the disciples when they suddenly felt … vulnerable … threatened … not so well protected ... pressured to join the crowd or simply disappear. There would soon come a time when their devotion to discipleship, their devotion to Christ would be tested far beyond any test you or I will likely see in our lifetime. At least, maybe not a physical test.
The truth is we are tested each day in some form or fashion, and whether we pass or fail these tests is determined by the choices we make, by how intentional we are about our faith journey or whether we simply take it for granted that a single “moment” in the course of our lives will be adequate for salvation, for redemption; “just enough” to avoid hell.
Following Jesus through the Gates of Jerusalem and making a public proclamation in the “name of the King” is sort of like attending worship. We’re there … until other choices pressure us to abandon the “triumph”; choices like fishing, hunting, golf, sports tournaments, lounging in bed, reading the Sunday paper. And when we make these choices and disregard that which could have been, should have been a “triumphal entry”, the world sees us “running away” – or worse, joining the crowd that demanded His Crucifixion. It is when the “triumph” comes closer to resembling a “defeat”.
These moments are not only when the darker – if true - side of self is revealed but these moments are also how the Church today loses its momentum and its moral authority to speak to anything. These are those moments when the label “hypocrite” actually finds its mark and sticks because, you see, the Church is not some faceless entity, a lifeless institution, or a building on the corner. The Church is not the Committee on Relief or the General Board of Church and Society. The Church is not even the Pope or the many Catholic and Methodist bishops. The Church is you and me. The Body of Christ is not some lifeless form that has no shape, no mission, no purpose. It is His presence made manifest in the life of His disciples, warts and all – or not at all. As stated earlier, there is no in-between, no “little of this” or “little of that”.
As the Lenten season winds down, it is appropriate that Christians take the time to reflect upon the journey that is Lent, the journey that takes us up to and through the Gates of Jerusalem, the journey that continues beyond those Gates … or simply fades out. It is when disciples discover their true allegiance and whether a relationship with the Lord exists at all. And it is indeed a time not only of reflection but a time of repentance – because the journey through Holy Week is going to get very ugly before we can even think about rising from the darkness.
Putting together several dictionary and online sources, the summarized definition of a “Christian” is this: one who professes belief in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ; one who is a member of a Christian denominational church. While this cannot be said to be an exhaustive search result, it does speak substantially to what being a “Christian” is about: discipleship; a journey that begins but does not end in a single moment. Being a Christian is, like love itself, an intentional act of one’s will. It is in no way “incidental” but is, rather, a deliberate and chosen way of life marked by perseverance, constancy, integrity, and faith.
Compare this to the definition of secular humanism: A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth; a cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns.
Though the values may seem similar on the surface as they pertain to the worth of the human person, there are still fundamental differences between the Christian and the humanist (and no, one cannot be both). One has foundational “rules” and values that are not subject to review or revision, despite apparent evidence to the contrary. The other’s “rules” and values shift from one generation to the next. For Christians, this means acknowledging the sacred value of the life of the human person, a value that cannot be measured, marked, quantified, or qualified except in holy terms; sanctity, of sacred worth meaning that the value of the human person is according to the Lord’s desire and not ours or society’s.
The humanist measure of human value, on the other hand, is assigned by society and is determined from one generation to the next according to one’s usefulness to the dominant culture. The set value is determined from generation to generation and fluctuates to accommodate a very fickle human race that may value a certain attribute today and then find it completely useless tomorrow. One must then be prepared to “keep up” with the constant and undefined changes in values and social mores or risk being labeled a social liability rather than a cultural asset.
Think in terms of how the Church as a whole is typically regarded today and compare that to 20-30 years ago, and it is easy to see how values change from generation to generation and how the Church in general has shifted its values from the sacred to the more humanist. Once, the Church stood as the believable Body of Christ; now it seems to be little more than an unbelievable “wet blanket” that gets in the way of “real life”. How can an institution that promotes Life be considered anything less than the “Life” of the party??
The Lord alone knows the answer, but humans – perhaps especially Christians - will bust a hump trying to figure out how to keep up to the point of compromising his own integrity in a vain effort to “be popular” to the point of moving from one church to another to follow a charismatic or popular preacher or a particular program … or, worse, dismissing the fellowship of believers in church and Bible study altogether.
Clearly Christian priorities have shifted. Once, it was unthinkable to miss church; now it is simply a matter of mood or something more appealing. Once, an unborn child held promise; now such a child can be regarded as a threat to a promising future. Once, homosexuality was a sin; now it is “lifestyle”. The humanist list of shifting priorities is endless and strangely enough, the Church in many instances has even jumped on this humanist bandwagon in a vain effort to be “relevant” or “popular” or to “fit in”. And the world is laughing, not WITH us but AT us.
This fickle behavior could very well mark the day when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, that moment many refer to as the “Triumphal Entry”. The Gospels differ slightly in how Jesus was received and by whom, but it can be said that without this particular moment Jesus still had throngs of followers besides the Twelve – for the time being. Luke says “people” threw their cloaks on the road and that “the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God …”
Disciples. Followers of Jesus, students of the New Testament, but not necessarily believers in the New Covenant of the Lord God. Sometimes things turn ugly. Sometimes things stop going the way we believe, expect, or demand they should. Sometimes humanist values and social pressure become overwhelming. And like the disciples of Jesus’ day, we abandon that which was once considered “absolute” in favor of that which is trendy and popular for the moment but clearly will not last. Unfortunately, we don’t always see or acknowledge that until it’s too late.
Triumphal Entry, indeed. Only there was no triumph, no apparent victory. Nothing was overcome, no one was chased out of town … except for most of the disciples when they suddenly felt … vulnerable … threatened … not so well protected ... pressured to join the crowd or simply disappear. There would soon come a time when their devotion to discipleship, their devotion to Christ would be tested far beyond any test you or I will likely see in our lifetime. At least, maybe not a physical test.
The truth is we are tested each day in some form or fashion, and whether we pass or fail these tests is determined by the choices we make, by how intentional we are about our faith journey or whether we simply take it for granted that a single “moment” in the course of our lives will be adequate for salvation, for redemption; “just enough” to avoid hell.
Following Jesus through the Gates of Jerusalem and making a public proclamation in the “name of the King” is sort of like attending worship. We’re there … until other choices pressure us to abandon the “triumph”; choices like fishing, hunting, golf, sports tournaments, lounging in bed, reading the Sunday paper. And when we make these choices and disregard that which could have been, should have been a “triumphal entry”, the world sees us “running away” – or worse, joining the crowd that demanded His Crucifixion. It is when the “triumph” comes closer to resembling a “defeat”.
These moments are not only when the darker – if true - side of self is revealed but these moments are also how the Church today loses its momentum and its moral authority to speak to anything. These are those moments when the label “hypocrite” actually finds its mark and sticks because, you see, the Church is not some faceless entity, a lifeless institution, or a building on the corner. The Church is not the Committee on Relief or the General Board of Church and Society. The Church is not even the Pope or the many Catholic and Methodist bishops. The Church is you and me. The Body of Christ is not some lifeless form that has no shape, no mission, no purpose. It is His presence made manifest in the life of His disciples, warts and all – or not at all. As stated earlier, there is no in-between, no “little of this” or “little of that”.
As the Lenten season winds down, it is appropriate that Christians take the time to reflect upon the journey that is Lent, the journey that takes us up to and through the Gates of Jerusalem, the journey that continues beyond those Gates … or simply fades out. It is when disciples discover their true allegiance and whether a relationship with the Lord exists at all. And it is indeed a time not only of reflection but a time of repentance – because the journey through Holy Week is going to get very ugly before we can even think about rising from the darkness.
Monday, March 22, 2010
On the Road to Jerusalem
John 12:1-8
Often when we are on the road to somewhere, a stopover is incidental to the journey. It is not necessarily relevant to the destination but is, instead, a brief interlude with no real meaning, no real purpose except that which is, as previously stated, incidental. And while Jesus’ stopover in Bethany at the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus – the one whom He had raised from the dead - may seem incidental to us, the 7th century English historian and monk known as St. Bede saw Jesus’ stop-over as intentional within the context of Jesus marching to certain death while passing by and breaking bread with the one whose life was restored. From death to life, from life to death, we are shown more than a simple trek to Jerusalem as a fulfillment of prophecy. Much more.
According to St. Augustine, Mary’s hair is not so coincidental. And according to St. Theodore, Judas Iscariot is fooling only himself. On the road to Jerusalem, then, we see through the eyes of the early church fathers more than the passage of time and certainly more than a simple journey incidental to the destination. We have before us a recurrent theme that there is nothing – and I mean nothing – incidental to, for, or through our Lord.
The biggest stumbling block I see in this passage, however, is the seeming choice that is laid before us between paying homage to the Lord or serving the poor. And as I was reading this passage and working to overcome this apparent obstacle, I was thinking about the coming “Rethink Ministry” workshop, “Restoring Methodism”, and the many other discussions floating about within the United Methodist Church, all dealing with mission and ministry within the context of steadily declining membership as well as declining worship, Sunday School attendance, and professions of faith.
So with all these issues and sub-topics swirling through my feeble mind, it finally occurred to me that what we may be able to glean from this relatively small passage “on the road to Jerusalem” is the difference between “intentional discipleship” and “incidental presence”, the defining point of which seems to be centered on Mary and marking the difference between what John Wesley called a “nominal Christian” and a bona fide disciple totally devoted to the journey WITH Jesus. On the same road. With the same destination. And with the same sense of purpose.
The extravagance of Mary’s gift to Jesus is defined in terms relevant to the day. Judas claimed that the perfume with which Mary anointed Jesus was worth about 300 denarii. Considering that the average working wage was about 1 denarius per day, 300 is indeed extravagant. In our contemporary society, pouring a year’s worth of wages into the Church rather than to share with the poor who are hungry and who are doing without seems to figure into what the Church is struggling with today and even with what we have been taught about tithing, that act of worship by which we offer to the Lord only a portion of our wages rather than the whole enchilada because, after all, we have to eat, too.
It’s not about money, though, and it’s not about choosing between offering all we have to the Lord OR feeding the poor (worshipping vs. being in ministry). And most certainly, Jesus’ statement about the perpetuity of poverty does not diminish our call to help those who cannot help themselves. Rather, I think it is an understanding that there can be nothing set apart that the Lord does not have a legitimate claim to, that there is nothing we cannot use for His glory. Even the hair on one’s head! Think about what a head full of oily hair looks like and the vanity one deals with while preparing to go out in public, and decide for yourself whether you would be willing to mess up your hair for the Lord!
Now remember that Mary has already witnessed Jesus bringing her beloved brother Lazarus back to life. Her rather extravagant act of worship goes far beyond the moment and speaks volumes about our own struggle between either/or when it comes to the proper worship of the Lord by our tithes and offerings OR giving to the poor. The fragrance of this nard was apparently pretty potent and if Mary has dumped all this much on Jesus’ feet as an anointing, as an act of worship, she has made a proclamation – and a rather compelling one – that involves everyone around her. Even if they are not active participates, they are at the very least passively involved because they can SMELL the extravagance even if they could not clearly see! It is equally compelling that Mary’s anointing was done very publicly and while Jesus is still alive rather than in secret after He’s dead, don’t you think?
Discipleship is this journey we must choose to endure on the road to Jerusalem, beginning with the moment when those who might choose to follow Jesus are called to “count the cost” of what such a journey means and how much of ourselves we are willing to give to this journey and even how much needling we might be willing to endure, such as being called a fool. One scholar wrote: Mary’s gesture of love demonstrates that an act of service to one person can be an inexplicable extravagance to another. Especially another who does not comprehend the depth of love that is being demonstrated by Mary and by so many others who portray to an unbelieving world what it means to be a disciple of Christ – and by doing so, conveying what Christ’s compelling love means to an unbelieving world. After all, would you be willing to die for someone who would sooner spit in your eye than to simply say, “Thank you”?
This is discipleship. It is not a “moment” of realization; it is a journey. It is the epitome of what Jesus’ death on the cross conveys: a complete and extravagant emptying of oneself for the sake of another. The journey on the road to Jerusalem reveals this and prepares us for what is to come. Judas not only does not get it, but he seems to represent a world that does not want to get it. In fact, it can be said that Judas probably best represents that significant number of “nominal” CHRISITIANS who don’t get it. Judas is attempting to hide behind even a commonly held understanding of society’s responsibility to the poor in trying to detract from that act of worship and the totality of Mary’s devotion to the Lord. Judas wants the world to see her foolishness and, ultimately, protect himself and all he can gather not for the poor but for himself.
Rather than reveal her foolishness, however, Judas reveals his own. Not only does he fail to diminish Mary’s act of total and complete devotion to Christ, he actually highlights it especially when he receives a direct rebuke from Jesus Himself. The United Methodist Church could learn a lesson or two from this encounter by understanding and conveying to an unbelieving world that there is a time and a place for everything. Even Jesus went away to be alone and to pray. Yes, the poor deserve our attention and help but pure worship, pure devotion, pure submission to the Lord must come first. Discipleship is the result of that devotion, that total submission. Discipleship comes as a result, not as a cause. It is not an either/or proposition.
It is the very extravagance of our worship, the overwhelming “scent” of our total devotion to Him such as with the oil and even using our hair to wipe clean the feet of Christ that compels an unbelieving world to notice – even if they don’t understand it … or reject it outright. We don’t have to make Jesus out to be something He is not, and we do not have to rewrite Scripture to accommodate the unbelievers. We simply have to be devoted … entirely and completely. Or not at all.
It is discipleship at its finest … on the road to Jerusalem.
Amen.
Often when we are on the road to somewhere, a stopover is incidental to the journey. It is not necessarily relevant to the destination but is, instead, a brief interlude with no real meaning, no real purpose except that which is, as previously stated, incidental. And while Jesus’ stopover in Bethany at the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus – the one whom He had raised from the dead - may seem incidental to us, the 7th century English historian and monk known as St. Bede saw Jesus’ stop-over as intentional within the context of Jesus marching to certain death while passing by and breaking bread with the one whose life was restored. From death to life, from life to death, we are shown more than a simple trek to Jerusalem as a fulfillment of prophecy. Much more.
According to St. Augustine, Mary’s hair is not so coincidental. And according to St. Theodore, Judas Iscariot is fooling only himself. On the road to Jerusalem, then, we see through the eyes of the early church fathers more than the passage of time and certainly more than a simple journey incidental to the destination. We have before us a recurrent theme that there is nothing – and I mean nothing – incidental to, for, or through our Lord.
The biggest stumbling block I see in this passage, however, is the seeming choice that is laid before us between paying homage to the Lord or serving the poor. And as I was reading this passage and working to overcome this apparent obstacle, I was thinking about the coming “Rethink Ministry” workshop, “Restoring Methodism”, and the many other discussions floating about within the United Methodist Church, all dealing with mission and ministry within the context of steadily declining membership as well as declining worship, Sunday School attendance, and professions of faith.
So with all these issues and sub-topics swirling through my feeble mind, it finally occurred to me that what we may be able to glean from this relatively small passage “on the road to Jerusalem” is the difference between “intentional discipleship” and “incidental presence”, the defining point of which seems to be centered on Mary and marking the difference between what John Wesley called a “nominal Christian” and a bona fide disciple totally devoted to the journey WITH Jesus. On the same road. With the same destination. And with the same sense of purpose.
The extravagance of Mary’s gift to Jesus is defined in terms relevant to the day. Judas claimed that the perfume with which Mary anointed Jesus was worth about 300 denarii. Considering that the average working wage was about 1 denarius per day, 300 is indeed extravagant. In our contemporary society, pouring a year’s worth of wages into the Church rather than to share with the poor who are hungry and who are doing without seems to figure into what the Church is struggling with today and even with what we have been taught about tithing, that act of worship by which we offer to the Lord only a portion of our wages rather than the whole enchilada because, after all, we have to eat, too.
It’s not about money, though, and it’s not about choosing between offering all we have to the Lord OR feeding the poor (worshipping vs. being in ministry). And most certainly, Jesus’ statement about the perpetuity of poverty does not diminish our call to help those who cannot help themselves. Rather, I think it is an understanding that there can be nothing set apart that the Lord does not have a legitimate claim to, that there is nothing we cannot use for His glory. Even the hair on one’s head! Think about what a head full of oily hair looks like and the vanity one deals with while preparing to go out in public, and decide for yourself whether you would be willing to mess up your hair for the Lord!
Now remember that Mary has already witnessed Jesus bringing her beloved brother Lazarus back to life. Her rather extravagant act of worship goes far beyond the moment and speaks volumes about our own struggle between either/or when it comes to the proper worship of the Lord by our tithes and offerings OR giving to the poor. The fragrance of this nard was apparently pretty potent and if Mary has dumped all this much on Jesus’ feet as an anointing, as an act of worship, she has made a proclamation – and a rather compelling one – that involves everyone around her. Even if they are not active participates, they are at the very least passively involved because they can SMELL the extravagance even if they could not clearly see! It is equally compelling that Mary’s anointing was done very publicly and while Jesus is still alive rather than in secret after He’s dead, don’t you think?
Discipleship is this journey we must choose to endure on the road to Jerusalem, beginning with the moment when those who might choose to follow Jesus are called to “count the cost” of what such a journey means and how much of ourselves we are willing to give to this journey and even how much needling we might be willing to endure, such as being called a fool. One scholar wrote: Mary’s gesture of love demonstrates that an act of service to one person can be an inexplicable extravagance to another. Especially another who does not comprehend the depth of love that is being demonstrated by Mary and by so many others who portray to an unbelieving world what it means to be a disciple of Christ – and by doing so, conveying what Christ’s compelling love means to an unbelieving world. After all, would you be willing to die for someone who would sooner spit in your eye than to simply say, “Thank you”?
This is discipleship. It is not a “moment” of realization; it is a journey. It is the epitome of what Jesus’ death on the cross conveys: a complete and extravagant emptying of oneself for the sake of another. The journey on the road to Jerusalem reveals this and prepares us for what is to come. Judas not only does not get it, but he seems to represent a world that does not want to get it. In fact, it can be said that Judas probably best represents that significant number of “nominal” CHRISITIANS who don’t get it. Judas is attempting to hide behind even a commonly held understanding of society’s responsibility to the poor in trying to detract from that act of worship and the totality of Mary’s devotion to the Lord. Judas wants the world to see her foolishness and, ultimately, protect himself and all he can gather not for the poor but for himself.
Rather than reveal her foolishness, however, Judas reveals his own. Not only does he fail to diminish Mary’s act of total and complete devotion to Christ, he actually highlights it especially when he receives a direct rebuke from Jesus Himself. The United Methodist Church could learn a lesson or two from this encounter by understanding and conveying to an unbelieving world that there is a time and a place for everything. Even Jesus went away to be alone and to pray. Yes, the poor deserve our attention and help but pure worship, pure devotion, pure submission to the Lord must come first. Discipleship is the result of that devotion, that total submission. Discipleship comes as a result, not as a cause. It is not an either/or proposition.
It is the very extravagance of our worship, the overwhelming “scent” of our total devotion to Him such as with the oil and even using our hair to wipe clean the feet of Christ that compels an unbelieving world to notice – even if they don’t understand it … or reject it outright. We don’t have to make Jesus out to be something He is not, and we do not have to rewrite Scripture to accommodate the unbelievers. We simply have to be devoted … entirely and completely. Or not at all.
It is discipleship at its finest … on the road to Jerusalem.
Amen.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Restoring Methodism
Reference Text: Restoring Methodism: 10 decisions for United Methodist Churches in America; Scott, James B. and Molly Davis, Provident Publishing, Dallas TX
Restoration: an extraordinary activity of YHWH, through the work of the Holy Spirit, which transforms both individual believers and the community of faith into the image of Christ.
Within the context of “restoration”, there are a couple of points upon which the Church as a whole must agree: 1) that restoration is necessary, and 2) what we hope to restore is pure and holy. One may be inclined to think the answers would be simple especially in light of consistent decline not only in church membership in America but, perhaps more significantly, also in worship attendance, Bible study classes, and new professions of faith. That restoration is necessary may not be in dispute, but what the Church must be restored to may be somewhat more elusive because as much as we may claim a disdain for “labels” (e.g., “conservative” or “liberal”), the truth is we are pretty clearly defined by these labels as clearly as we define others by these same labels.
Within a quest for “restoration”, however, is contained a conflict which is inherent to the task of “restoration”. The idea is not to offer to society a “new and improved” Church or a “kinder, gentler” God but to restore that which has been lost to the world and an overwhelmingly secularized culture over the course of centuries. Those who insist upon “restoration” will be at odds with those who insist that it is incumbent upon the Church to become more relevant to the world and its ever-shifting standards and ideals. The conflict exists and will continue to exist as long as humanity refuses to submit entirely and completely to the sovereignty of the Lord and continue in vain to be “all things to all people”.
The truth is there will always be that element of humanity which will reject the Lord and His Gospel. Jesus advised His disciples of this very thing even in His days on this earth (Matthew 10:14-15), but He never commanded His disciples to come up with new ideas, new programs, or a new angle by which to approach those who had rejected the Gospel nor did He suggest any sort of compromise. The only real “need” these people had then – and have today - according to the Lord, is the Gospel.
This perspective is, I think, important to consider in light of the hellenized and pharisaic culture that existed during this period of time in Israel. These people must surely have been confused about what religion was all about, and the Gospel which was surely presented to them was an offer to free them from these bonds and shackles of inconsistent standards and practices. Yet Jesus knew His disciples would be rejected even after an honest effort, so He gave them permission to move along. By telling them to “shake the dust” off, He was virtually commanding them to unapologetically leave those who reject the Pure Gospel (unencumbered by human ideals) behind. “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.”
Must we apologize for what Jesus says? Or do we follow behind the so-called “Jesus Seminars” through which a group of intellectuals determines for itself whether Jesus actually spoke certain words or phrases? Or do we work more stridently toward an enlightened understanding of what Jesus actually meant when these words were spoken and recorded? Indeed, there is surely a fine line dividing those who can’t seem to grasp such a concept as a God in heaven – let alone an interactive One - and those who just don’t want to. In America in particular, that “land of the free”, we celebrate our “God-given” rights by rejecting the very God to whom we attribute these rights. Clearly something is amiss and in its perpetual quest to discover exactly what and where the problem is, the Church seems to have been left without a clear identity of itself and its mission. As a result of such confusion, it is reasonable to conclude that those on the outside looking in are unsure about what they observe and perhaps determine that they are better off to simply stay away.
The Church does, in fact, owe the world an apology. More importantly, the Church owes the Lord an apology. The Church has failed to serve as the Divine sanctuary against the world and has failed to properly or adequately maintain her role as “bride” waiting for the return of the “Bridegroom”, who is Christ. The Church has committed adultery, has cheated on the Father just as ancient Israel did when it also tried to be all things in all ways to all people, failing to understand the very nature of its existence as a “holy” and “priestly” nation set apart for the Lord. And by cheating the Lord in her betrayal, the Church has ultimately cheated the world by failing to offer a clear, consistent, and eternal alternative to chaos, confusion, and pain inherent to a world that is clearly lost and cannot find its way in the dark. The “light” that was once the Church (Matthew 5:14-16) has been dimmed by her adultery.
The Church cannot work this out on its own without first repenting. This is the necessary first step toward restoration. We must first resolve that we want to be “restored”. And though it may seem to make no sense that the Lord would turn His back on the institutional Church that is His bride, we cannot ignore the words of St. Paul to the Romans: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the Truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever". Amen (1:24-25).”
There is hope. There is always hope just as expressed to the seven churches in The Revelation, but time is surely running out. It is incumbent upon the Church to identify herself first to the Lord according to her chosen allegiance. Then and only then can we be the “light” Christ has called His faithful to be in a world filled with darkness.
Restoration: an extraordinary activity of YHWH, through the work of the Holy Spirit, which transforms both individual believers and the community of faith into the image of Christ.
Within the context of “restoration”, there are a couple of points upon which the Church as a whole must agree: 1) that restoration is necessary, and 2) what we hope to restore is pure and holy. One may be inclined to think the answers would be simple especially in light of consistent decline not only in church membership in America but, perhaps more significantly, also in worship attendance, Bible study classes, and new professions of faith. That restoration is necessary may not be in dispute, but what the Church must be restored to may be somewhat more elusive because as much as we may claim a disdain for “labels” (e.g., “conservative” or “liberal”), the truth is we are pretty clearly defined by these labels as clearly as we define others by these same labels.
Within a quest for “restoration”, however, is contained a conflict which is inherent to the task of “restoration”. The idea is not to offer to society a “new and improved” Church or a “kinder, gentler” God but to restore that which has been lost to the world and an overwhelmingly secularized culture over the course of centuries. Those who insist upon “restoration” will be at odds with those who insist that it is incumbent upon the Church to become more relevant to the world and its ever-shifting standards and ideals. The conflict exists and will continue to exist as long as humanity refuses to submit entirely and completely to the sovereignty of the Lord and continue in vain to be “all things to all people”.
The truth is there will always be that element of humanity which will reject the Lord and His Gospel. Jesus advised His disciples of this very thing even in His days on this earth (Matthew 10:14-15), but He never commanded His disciples to come up with new ideas, new programs, or a new angle by which to approach those who had rejected the Gospel nor did He suggest any sort of compromise. The only real “need” these people had then – and have today - according to the Lord, is the Gospel.
This perspective is, I think, important to consider in light of the hellenized and pharisaic culture that existed during this period of time in Israel. These people must surely have been confused about what religion was all about, and the Gospel which was surely presented to them was an offer to free them from these bonds and shackles of inconsistent standards and practices. Yet Jesus knew His disciples would be rejected even after an honest effort, so He gave them permission to move along. By telling them to “shake the dust” off, He was virtually commanding them to unapologetically leave those who reject the Pure Gospel (unencumbered by human ideals) behind. “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.”
Must we apologize for what Jesus says? Or do we follow behind the so-called “Jesus Seminars” through which a group of intellectuals determines for itself whether Jesus actually spoke certain words or phrases? Or do we work more stridently toward an enlightened understanding of what Jesus actually meant when these words were spoken and recorded? Indeed, there is surely a fine line dividing those who can’t seem to grasp such a concept as a God in heaven – let alone an interactive One - and those who just don’t want to. In America in particular, that “land of the free”, we celebrate our “God-given” rights by rejecting the very God to whom we attribute these rights. Clearly something is amiss and in its perpetual quest to discover exactly what and where the problem is, the Church seems to have been left without a clear identity of itself and its mission. As a result of such confusion, it is reasonable to conclude that those on the outside looking in are unsure about what they observe and perhaps determine that they are better off to simply stay away.
The Church does, in fact, owe the world an apology. More importantly, the Church owes the Lord an apology. The Church has failed to serve as the Divine sanctuary against the world and has failed to properly or adequately maintain her role as “bride” waiting for the return of the “Bridegroom”, who is Christ. The Church has committed adultery, has cheated on the Father just as ancient Israel did when it also tried to be all things in all ways to all people, failing to understand the very nature of its existence as a “holy” and “priestly” nation set apart for the Lord. And by cheating the Lord in her betrayal, the Church has ultimately cheated the world by failing to offer a clear, consistent, and eternal alternative to chaos, confusion, and pain inherent to a world that is clearly lost and cannot find its way in the dark. The “light” that was once the Church (Matthew 5:14-16) has been dimmed by her adultery.
The Church cannot work this out on its own without first repenting. This is the necessary first step toward restoration. We must first resolve that we want to be “restored”. And though it may seem to make no sense that the Lord would turn His back on the institutional Church that is His bride, we cannot ignore the words of St. Paul to the Romans: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the Truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever". Amen (1:24-25).”
There is hope. There is always hope just as expressed to the seven churches in The Revelation, but time is surely running out. It is incumbent upon the Church to identify herself first to the Lord according to her chosen allegiance. Then and only then can we be the “light” Christ has called His faithful to be in a world filled with darkness.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Prodigal Children, All
Psalm 32
Luke 15:11b-32
A few years ago there was a very nearly violent confrontation at a workplace instigated by a man who had a tendency to speak his mind very aggressively, especially if he felt challenged. Being a rather large man, it seemed he knew how to use his size and his booming voice to intimidate. What was going through his mind, however, is not necessarily relevant nor is the situation that led to the blow-out. In the course of events, the man had all but told his supervisor – in front of the rest of the work team – to go jump in a lake, though I cleaned the language up a bit! In the end, the president of the company called the managers together to discuss the confrontation and what course of action to take. This president preferred consensus management over delegated authority. The managers were unanimous in their agreement that the man must be terminated immediately, being aware of legal precedents which were already established.
The president, claiming to be a Christian, said; “What about the Prodigal Son?” He felt the offender should be forgiven and given yet another chance. One manager asked: “Did he ask for forgiveness? Did he apologize?” The president answered that the man had not only not apologized but insisted that he had no reason to apologize.
Finally, another manager a little more familiar with the Scripture and the story answered the president. “There is a key element to the parable: REPENTANCE. The Prodigal Son did not insist that he was “right” even if his method had been wrong – AND the Son asked to be forgiven AFTER he had come to his senses and realized the harm, the sin, and the subsequent damage, all that came about as a result of his chosen and deliberate separation from his father.
The man was finally fired.
The second story involves a son who took some money from his father for a weekend retreat with a church group – only the son took the money and went bar-hopping and skirt-chasing. This story is similar to that of the Prodigal Son except that this young man got locked up for drunk and disorderly. Since he had already spent all the cash, he was forced to call his father for bail. Of course dad was disappointed because he never suspected his son to be so inclined, but he posted the bail and said very little on the ride home.
The next morning the son did finally muster the nerve to apologize to his father, and dad readily accepted his apology and forgave him for the incident after the son had assured his dad that such a thing had never happened before (a lie) and would never happen again (a big, ol’ lie). Later one of the son’s buddies came by to pick him up for a ball game. On the way to the game, the son was laughing about the “good ol’ time he had until he got picked up by the police. A bit of bad luck, he said, but the women I met and the high time I did have …. Wooo-weee!! “Next time I’ll be more careful!”
The first story involves a man who is unwilling to believe that he could be wrong on any level, that it was everybody else’s fault. Since the incident which led to his dismissal was not the first offense and since he refused to make peace with anyone when he was given the chance, he was dismissed by a man who was eager to “forgive and forget”, but there was that portion of the equation missing from the entire situation: the man was not sorry, and repentance was not an option.
The concept in the second story some may consider being a little trickier because dad’s forgiveness was sincere. When the son had asked for forgiveness, the father readily accepted the apology and was ready to put the incident in the past where it belongs. However, the unconditional blessing coming from dad has been somewhat complicated by an ungrateful and manipulative son who said “sorry” not because he was but because he was seeking to avoid further consequences. He wanted dad to believe he had learned his lesson. He was manipulating his father and the circumstances for his own benefit. He had learned nothing, his “apology” was no apology at all and as he had expressed to his friend, repentance was not an option.
So the question we’re left with in the story of the Prodigal Son is this: if son had just come home after he ran out of money and said nothing, would or should dad be compelled, required, or inclined to forgive him without a word, especially if the only thing the son might have been sorry about was that he ran out of money? To be sure, the portrait Jesus is painting is that of a loving father who is painfully aware that his son has gone astray. It could be inferred that the father was not naïve about why the son took the money in the first place, but he nevertheless gave the son his portion without question and without warning. The son was not seeking a new business venture or to expand the family enterprise. The son was up to no good and the father may well have known this but this was his son, not an indentured slave. The son was free to stay or go – the choice had to be his own.
In the case of the wild man in the work place, forgiveness from the president would have been inappropriate because the president was not a party to the incident and had not been directly offended. In the case of the father with the drunken son, forgiveness came easily as it was the father’s nature not to hold grudges. He was inclined by his good nature to give anyone who asked the benefit of the doubt. Dad is no fool, however. There is a limit to his patience and good nature. He possesses a pretty sound understanding of human nature which allows him to give a great deal of slack especially for those with a rather weak constitution, but he also understands that one’s intent is eventually revealed. Those who apologize as a mere courtesy but make no real effort at reconciliation are not interested in a restored relationship; they only want to escape retribution.
The Prodigal Son came into a real awakening, but the story goes much deeper than just surface issues such as consequences for bad behavior. Children leave home and set out to make their own way in the world. In fact, we parents do our best to teach our children to function independently in the world. So our kids leave, but the loving relationship which existed before still exists. In fact, that loving relationship can be extended by the child who was taught how to love. So rather than a relationship being completely severed, that relationship can actually be extended to include others who will eventually come into the child’s life. The life line from generation to generation still exists.
In the story of the Prodigal Son a genuine, loving relationship had been severed by the son’s choice of action. The son sought not only to strike out on his own but to completely separate himself from his father altogether. Why he made such a choice is anyone’s guess just as we parents are even today sometimes left scratching our heads and wondering why our children sometimes make such obviously bad choices. I don’t see, however, that Jesus makes an attempt to go there because that is not the point of the story.
Jesus is speaking to an entire audience of prodigal children – then and now. He is speaking to a huge chunk of that crowd, many of whom likely believe their sins are so great that restoration is not possible – so they don’t even try. But listen carefully. Jesus is also speaking to the many who take such forgiveness for granted and merely assume that such grace is automatic, that it is not necessary to apologize, make amends, or even attempt to live a life worthy of such love and consideration. Simply to say, “I’m sorry” says nothing of tomorrow. It is merely in the moment and seems to be appropriate – and it is, but it is not enough.
Repentance goes far beyond spoken words. In fact, like “love” itself, repentance requires an act of the will. We not only express our sorrow for any offense we’ve committed, but within the apology is an expressed implication that we won’t do that again. Repentance also indicates which way we want the relationship to go and whether we are truly seeking restoration of that relationship – or simply trying to escape punishment or avoid consequences. It’s funny that we teach our children to apologize when they’ve hurt someone because it is the polite thing to do. I think often we also try to teach our children to see and understand the harm they’ve done, but in the end it is the apology we will insist upon – whether they want to or not. But think also of this: do you really want an apology from someone who does not mean it and has no intention of changing his or her behavior?
The “meat and potatoes” of the story is for those who are truly sorry and who truly intend a new direction for their lives. It is for those who understand how directionless and pointless and fraught with danger is a life spent apart from the very source of life. It is for those who would be grateful to the Father for mere “scraps from the table” but would soon enough discover that their place at the table is still intact and that our Father has just been waiting – and hoping – we would choose to return to Him.
Luke 15:11b-32
A few years ago there was a very nearly violent confrontation at a workplace instigated by a man who had a tendency to speak his mind very aggressively, especially if he felt challenged. Being a rather large man, it seemed he knew how to use his size and his booming voice to intimidate. What was going through his mind, however, is not necessarily relevant nor is the situation that led to the blow-out. In the course of events, the man had all but told his supervisor – in front of the rest of the work team – to go jump in a lake, though I cleaned the language up a bit! In the end, the president of the company called the managers together to discuss the confrontation and what course of action to take. This president preferred consensus management over delegated authority. The managers were unanimous in their agreement that the man must be terminated immediately, being aware of legal precedents which were already established.
The president, claiming to be a Christian, said; “What about the Prodigal Son?” He felt the offender should be forgiven and given yet another chance. One manager asked: “Did he ask for forgiveness? Did he apologize?” The president answered that the man had not only not apologized but insisted that he had no reason to apologize.
Finally, another manager a little more familiar with the Scripture and the story answered the president. “There is a key element to the parable: REPENTANCE. The Prodigal Son did not insist that he was “right” even if his method had been wrong – AND the Son asked to be forgiven AFTER he had come to his senses and realized the harm, the sin, and the subsequent damage, all that came about as a result of his chosen and deliberate separation from his father.
The man was finally fired.
The second story involves a son who took some money from his father for a weekend retreat with a church group – only the son took the money and went bar-hopping and skirt-chasing. This story is similar to that of the Prodigal Son except that this young man got locked up for drunk and disorderly. Since he had already spent all the cash, he was forced to call his father for bail. Of course dad was disappointed because he never suspected his son to be so inclined, but he posted the bail and said very little on the ride home.
The next morning the son did finally muster the nerve to apologize to his father, and dad readily accepted his apology and forgave him for the incident after the son had assured his dad that such a thing had never happened before (a lie) and would never happen again (a big, ol’ lie). Later one of the son’s buddies came by to pick him up for a ball game. On the way to the game, the son was laughing about the “good ol’ time he had until he got picked up by the police. A bit of bad luck, he said, but the women I met and the high time I did have …. Wooo-weee!! “Next time I’ll be more careful!”
The first story involves a man who is unwilling to believe that he could be wrong on any level, that it was everybody else’s fault. Since the incident which led to his dismissal was not the first offense and since he refused to make peace with anyone when he was given the chance, he was dismissed by a man who was eager to “forgive and forget”, but there was that portion of the equation missing from the entire situation: the man was not sorry, and repentance was not an option.
The concept in the second story some may consider being a little trickier because dad’s forgiveness was sincere. When the son had asked for forgiveness, the father readily accepted the apology and was ready to put the incident in the past where it belongs. However, the unconditional blessing coming from dad has been somewhat complicated by an ungrateful and manipulative son who said “sorry” not because he was but because he was seeking to avoid further consequences. He wanted dad to believe he had learned his lesson. He was manipulating his father and the circumstances for his own benefit. He had learned nothing, his “apology” was no apology at all and as he had expressed to his friend, repentance was not an option.
So the question we’re left with in the story of the Prodigal Son is this: if son had just come home after he ran out of money and said nothing, would or should dad be compelled, required, or inclined to forgive him without a word, especially if the only thing the son might have been sorry about was that he ran out of money? To be sure, the portrait Jesus is painting is that of a loving father who is painfully aware that his son has gone astray. It could be inferred that the father was not naïve about why the son took the money in the first place, but he nevertheless gave the son his portion without question and without warning. The son was not seeking a new business venture or to expand the family enterprise. The son was up to no good and the father may well have known this but this was his son, not an indentured slave. The son was free to stay or go – the choice had to be his own.
In the case of the wild man in the work place, forgiveness from the president would have been inappropriate because the president was not a party to the incident and had not been directly offended. In the case of the father with the drunken son, forgiveness came easily as it was the father’s nature not to hold grudges. He was inclined by his good nature to give anyone who asked the benefit of the doubt. Dad is no fool, however. There is a limit to his patience and good nature. He possesses a pretty sound understanding of human nature which allows him to give a great deal of slack especially for those with a rather weak constitution, but he also understands that one’s intent is eventually revealed. Those who apologize as a mere courtesy but make no real effort at reconciliation are not interested in a restored relationship; they only want to escape retribution.
The Prodigal Son came into a real awakening, but the story goes much deeper than just surface issues such as consequences for bad behavior. Children leave home and set out to make their own way in the world. In fact, we parents do our best to teach our children to function independently in the world. So our kids leave, but the loving relationship which existed before still exists. In fact, that loving relationship can be extended by the child who was taught how to love. So rather than a relationship being completely severed, that relationship can actually be extended to include others who will eventually come into the child’s life. The life line from generation to generation still exists.
In the story of the Prodigal Son a genuine, loving relationship had been severed by the son’s choice of action. The son sought not only to strike out on his own but to completely separate himself from his father altogether. Why he made such a choice is anyone’s guess just as we parents are even today sometimes left scratching our heads and wondering why our children sometimes make such obviously bad choices. I don’t see, however, that Jesus makes an attempt to go there because that is not the point of the story.
Jesus is speaking to an entire audience of prodigal children – then and now. He is speaking to a huge chunk of that crowd, many of whom likely believe their sins are so great that restoration is not possible – so they don’t even try. But listen carefully. Jesus is also speaking to the many who take such forgiveness for granted and merely assume that such grace is automatic, that it is not necessary to apologize, make amends, or even attempt to live a life worthy of such love and consideration. Simply to say, “I’m sorry” says nothing of tomorrow. It is merely in the moment and seems to be appropriate – and it is, but it is not enough.
Repentance goes far beyond spoken words. In fact, like “love” itself, repentance requires an act of the will. We not only express our sorrow for any offense we’ve committed, but within the apology is an expressed implication that we won’t do that again. Repentance also indicates which way we want the relationship to go and whether we are truly seeking restoration of that relationship – or simply trying to escape punishment or avoid consequences. It’s funny that we teach our children to apologize when they’ve hurt someone because it is the polite thing to do. I think often we also try to teach our children to see and understand the harm they’ve done, but in the end it is the apology we will insist upon – whether they want to or not. But think also of this: do you really want an apology from someone who does not mean it and has no intention of changing his or her behavior?
The “meat and potatoes” of the story is for those who are truly sorry and who truly intend a new direction for their lives. It is for those who understand how directionless and pointless and fraught with danger is a life spent apart from the very source of life. It is for those who would be grateful to the Father for mere “scraps from the table” but would soon enough discover that their place at the table is still intact and that our Father has just been waiting – and hoping – we would choose to return to Him.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Making Nice
Luke 13:1-9
“Unless you repent, you will all … perish.”
The incident involving the Galileans “whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” (Lk 13:1) lacks a lot of detail for even scholars to determine whether that incident is historically significant. That it is theologically significant, I think, is not so much in doubt especially as it pertains to the point Jesus is making: the sin of one is no greater than the same sin committed by another. Sin is still sin, it is rebellion against the Lord, and it still separates us from the Lord. As a point in fact, it will weigh much more heavily on those who do know the difference, on those who claim to be “saved”, than on those who live in genuine ignorance, as Jesus points out in Luke 12:48: “He who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”
We live in a society in which sin has become relative; relative to who commits the sin, relative to how much visible damage is done as a result of that sin, and relative to one’s own understanding of what actually constitutes sin. In fact, in many quarters including many religious denominations we are actually attempting to redefine sin, but this is not a new phenomenon. Our largely secular society – including the churches - has completely lost a sense of “fear” (i.e., “respect”) for the Divine and thus a sense of itself within a significantly secularized culture in which “anything goes” as long as we are not directly responsible for doing harm to someone. And even that does not seem to stop many of us. Consider malicious gossip as a prime example.
To a large degree, the Church can even – and perhaps especially – be held responsible for this secularization of cultural responsibility by having granted “free passes”, by choosing to appease rather than appropriate and maintain adequate biblical standards of living and worship. What this means is simply this: the Church is becoming far too involved in and acclimated to worldly affairs rather than calling people out of the world. And by “calling people out”, I do not mean as an accuser pointing a finger because if anyone stands accused, it is a complacent Church that chooses to appease by ignoring rather than by challenging people to a much greater calling and higher task. We have largely chosen to “surrender” rather than “sanctify”, and the greater judgment will one day befall us – unless we as the Church repent and stand on what we proclaim and demand for others. And indeed we must before we can reclaim the moral authority to demand anything.
Jesus does not mince words; why would the Church, His very Body, the manifestation of His presence and His Word? James Akin, a Catholic writer, offers this: “Portraying one’s religion as "dynamic" and "up and coming" (as in the latest trend or fashion) is an appeal to the desire for novelty. But it is precisely the desire for novelty that must be avoided in religion. The purpose of the Christian Church is to pass down what was given us by Christ and the apostles. Consequently, anyone who advertises himself as having a novel approach is playing a risky game, one that frequently results in heresy.”
Novelty, by its very nature, wears off. And quickly. And this seems largely to be not only what the American Protestant Church is trying to buy into itself but is also trying to convince those who have never known or have fallen away from the Body of Christ that they have found a “new and improved” Jesus, One who does not judge but only saves. A Jesus who turns a blind eye to sin because a “loving God” would not condemn His beloved for all eternity. Soon enough, however, the Truth is ultimately exposed, the “shine” is diminished, the “novelty” is gone, and people go away. By its very nature, “novelty” cannot long endure and in the case of religion, it cannot happen at all. 2000 years of Christian history already took care of “novelty”.
It is “novelty”, at least on some level, that is driving people in large numbers to non-denominational churches that require little and ask even less. There is a lot of fluff, a lot of novelty, a lot of popular appeal by giving folks what they want rather than what they need, a lot of “feel good” religion that glosses over such biblical truths as “Unless you repent, you will all … perish”. And from my own observations, what I have noticed is that such trendy religion does not call people to repentance and out of the world but, rather, invites people to join on their own terms. Coming to faith in Christ in such a setting refuses to “count the cost” of discipleship that even Jesus required and ignores repentance as an absolute necessity to sustained spiritual growth. Novel, trendy religion seeks to tell folks they can have their spiritual cake and eat it, too; that it is the Lord who will ultimately surrender – not us.
But, it is often argued, isn’t “Gospel” synonymous with “Good News”? Threats do not come across as “good news” and after awhile, folks get a little tired of being beat over the head. Besides, a good listen to a more contemporary Christian might come closer to suggesting that if there are portions of scripture you don’t like, just ignore it. After all, everyone else does, right? Including Christians? YES! ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANS! Because the New Testament is OF, BY, and FOR CHRISTIANS! And we are nothing if not “cafeteria” Christians who take certain portions of those things we like and dismiss those things we don’t like, exercising our – wait for it! - God-given “freedom” to do as we choose when we choose and as often – or as little - as we choose.
Appeasement is the mark of a complacent Church, and complacency is the kiss of death. It is at that moment of complacency when the Church – as the Body of Christ - ceases to exist. It seems to be widely believed that being “friends” with the world will show a “kinder, gentler” Church to a world gone mad and in need not of guidance and direction but friendship. It is the mistake often made by complacent parents who try to be “friends” with their children rather than the “parents” the Lord God has called them to be. And appeasement (or, more accurately, “surrender”) rarely works. Not only are those who are counting on integrity to take a stand left profoundly disappointed, but the authority that comes with integrity is diminished – or lost … forever.
Even in the midst of such gloomy “threats” as “thou shalt not …” or “unless you repent”, there is Good News, but we have to listen for it not only with our ears but with our hearts. Such statements come to us from the very Divine Mouth that will one day come to judge. And because we are loved, we are called. We are warned. Because of His enduring patience, we are given every opportunity to repent and embrace Him. The entire world of humanity deserves this very same consideration that comes from a benevolent God and Father, and it falls on the Church – the Body of Christ – to be this voice. We are not called to be “drinking buddies” with the world.
If there is faith at all, there must be these warnings, these calls to repentance, because if our conduct and our level of faith did not matter at all, there would be no need for Scripture except as historical records. Nothing more. No laws. No code of ethical behavior. No moral compass. No need to choose between this world and the next because faith itself will never have existed. There would be only the “here and now”. No future. No everlasting life. No “mansions in the sky”. No hope. No contentment. No peace of mind. No rest for the weary soul because there would be no soul to comfort. Everything would be a matter of flesh and bone.
There would be only chaos, despair, anarchy. Jungle rules by which animal instinct dictates who lives and who dies would be the order of the day. The weak among us, living in constant fear, would be trampled underfoot, and social justice would not even be a concept. Less-than-attractive, less-than-perfect newborn children would be cast into the fire – and it would not be the parents who would make that decision - and the elderly and infirm would be cast out as no longer useful – and it would not be the family making that determination. Social rules of engagement would be determined not by right but by might.
Just to imagine if there is no God …
The people of God cannot “make nice” with evil and complacency, greed and self-indulgence. We are called to repentance by the One, the Holy One, who came to show us the way out of this chaos and despair; the One who came to us like a firefighter entering into a burning building looking for survivors who are trapped by the smoke and the flames and cannot see the Way out. He is the one who, by calling people of faith to repentance, is reaching out His hand. All we have to do is take His hand, and He will lead us out; not stay there with us. Make nice with that hostile environment in which we are trapped … and we will surely perish.
“Unless you repent, you will all … perish.”
The incident involving the Galileans “whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” (Lk 13:1) lacks a lot of detail for even scholars to determine whether that incident is historically significant. That it is theologically significant, I think, is not so much in doubt especially as it pertains to the point Jesus is making: the sin of one is no greater than the same sin committed by another. Sin is still sin, it is rebellion against the Lord, and it still separates us from the Lord. As a point in fact, it will weigh much more heavily on those who do know the difference, on those who claim to be “saved”, than on those who live in genuine ignorance, as Jesus points out in Luke 12:48: “He who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”
We live in a society in which sin has become relative; relative to who commits the sin, relative to how much visible damage is done as a result of that sin, and relative to one’s own understanding of what actually constitutes sin. In fact, in many quarters including many religious denominations we are actually attempting to redefine sin, but this is not a new phenomenon. Our largely secular society – including the churches - has completely lost a sense of “fear” (i.e., “respect”) for the Divine and thus a sense of itself within a significantly secularized culture in which “anything goes” as long as we are not directly responsible for doing harm to someone. And even that does not seem to stop many of us. Consider malicious gossip as a prime example.
To a large degree, the Church can even – and perhaps especially – be held responsible for this secularization of cultural responsibility by having granted “free passes”, by choosing to appease rather than appropriate and maintain adequate biblical standards of living and worship. What this means is simply this: the Church is becoming far too involved in and acclimated to worldly affairs rather than calling people out of the world. And by “calling people out”, I do not mean as an accuser pointing a finger because if anyone stands accused, it is a complacent Church that chooses to appease by ignoring rather than by challenging people to a much greater calling and higher task. We have largely chosen to “surrender” rather than “sanctify”, and the greater judgment will one day befall us – unless we as the Church repent and stand on what we proclaim and demand for others. And indeed we must before we can reclaim the moral authority to demand anything.
Jesus does not mince words; why would the Church, His very Body, the manifestation of His presence and His Word? James Akin, a Catholic writer, offers this: “Portraying one’s religion as "dynamic" and "up and coming" (as in the latest trend or fashion) is an appeal to the desire for novelty. But it is precisely the desire for novelty that must be avoided in religion. The purpose of the Christian Church is to pass down what was given us by Christ and the apostles. Consequently, anyone who advertises himself as having a novel approach is playing a risky game, one that frequently results in heresy.”
Novelty, by its very nature, wears off. And quickly. And this seems largely to be not only what the American Protestant Church is trying to buy into itself but is also trying to convince those who have never known or have fallen away from the Body of Christ that they have found a “new and improved” Jesus, One who does not judge but only saves. A Jesus who turns a blind eye to sin because a “loving God” would not condemn His beloved for all eternity. Soon enough, however, the Truth is ultimately exposed, the “shine” is diminished, the “novelty” is gone, and people go away. By its very nature, “novelty” cannot long endure and in the case of religion, it cannot happen at all. 2000 years of Christian history already took care of “novelty”.
It is “novelty”, at least on some level, that is driving people in large numbers to non-denominational churches that require little and ask even less. There is a lot of fluff, a lot of novelty, a lot of popular appeal by giving folks what they want rather than what they need, a lot of “feel good” religion that glosses over such biblical truths as “Unless you repent, you will all … perish”. And from my own observations, what I have noticed is that such trendy religion does not call people to repentance and out of the world but, rather, invites people to join on their own terms. Coming to faith in Christ in such a setting refuses to “count the cost” of discipleship that even Jesus required and ignores repentance as an absolute necessity to sustained spiritual growth. Novel, trendy religion seeks to tell folks they can have their spiritual cake and eat it, too; that it is the Lord who will ultimately surrender – not us.
But, it is often argued, isn’t “Gospel” synonymous with “Good News”? Threats do not come across as “good news” and after awhile, folks get a little tired of being beat over the head. Besides, a good listen to a more contemporary Christian might come closer to suggesting that if there are portions of scripture you don’t like, just ignore it. After all, everyone else does, right? Including Christians? YES! ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANS! Because the New Testament is OF, BY, and FOR CHRISTIANS! And we are nothing if not “cafeteria” Christians who take certain portions of those things we like and dismiss those things we don’t like, exercising our – wait for it! - God-given “freedom” to do as we choose when we choose and as often – or as little - as we choose.
Appeasement is the mark of a complacent Church, and complacency is the kiss of death. It is at that moment of complacency when the Church – as the Body of Christ - ceases to exist. It seems to be widely believed that being “friends” with the world will show a “kinder, gentler” Church to a world gone mad and in need not of guidance and direction but friendship. It is the mistake often made by complacent parents who try to be “friends” with their children rather than the “parents” the Lord God has called them to be. And appeasement (or, more accurately, “surrender”) rarely works. Not only are those who are counting on integrity to take a stand left profoundly disappointed, but the authority that comes with integrity is diminished – or lost … forever.
Even in the midst of such gloomy “threats” as “thou shalt not …” or “unless you repent”, there is Good News, but we have to listen for it not only with our ears but with our hearts. Such statements come to us from the very Divine Mouth that will one day come to judge. And because we are loved, we are called. We are warned. Because of His enduring patience, we are given every opportunity to repent and embrace Him. The entire world of humanity deserves this very same consideration that comes from a benevolent God and Father, and it falls on the Church – the Body of Christ – to be this voice. We are not called to be “drinking buddies” with the world.
If there is faith at all, there must be these warnings, these calls to repentance, because if our conduct and our level of faith did not matter at all, there would be no need for Scripture except as historical records. Nothing more. No laws. No code of ethical behavior. No moral compass. No need to choose between this world and the next because faith itself will never have existed. There would be only the “here and now”. No future. No everlasting life. No “mansions in the sky”. No hope. No contentment. No peace of mind. No rest for the weary soul because there would be no soul to comfort. Everything would be a matter of flesh and bone.
There would be only chaos, despair, anarchy. Jungle rules by which animal instinct dictates who lives and who dies would be the order of the day. The weak among us, living in constant fear, would be trampled underfoot, and social justice would not even be a concept. Less-than-attractive, less-than-perfect newborn children would be cast into the fire – and it would not be the parents who would make that decision - and the elderly and infirm would be cast out as no longer useful – and it would not be the family making that determination. Social rules of engagement would be determined not by right but by might.
Just to imagine if there is no God …
The people of God cannot “make nice” with evil and complacency, greed and self-indulgence. We are called to repentance by the One, the Holy One, who came to show us the way out of this chaos and despair; the One who came to us like a firefighter entering into a burning building looking for survivors who are trapped by the smoke and the flames and cannot see the Way out. He is the one who, by calling people of faith to repentance, is reaching out His hand. All we have to do is take His hand, and He will lead us out; not stay there with us. Make nice with that hostile environment in which we are trapped … and we will surely perish.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Blind Indulgence
Philippians 3:17-4:1
Luke 13:31-35
The other night at our OT Survey class I quoted a TV character and was promptly told that I probably watch too much TV. Well, I’ve admitted that much, but M*A*S*H and gangster movies don’t count as “too much”. Besides, sometimes even TV writers have something worth listening to!
Though I’ve never actually watched this particular show, A&E has a series called “Intervention” which is about addicts and their loved ones who pull out all the stops and “intervene” in their lives before they are completely destroyed. As it goes for addicts, including alcoholics, interventions become necessary because just when we might think someone has actually “hit bottom”, we find their downward spiral to be substantially “bottomless”. And we intervene because we genuinely care. We actually “love” that person whose life is spinning out of control, that person who is on the road to perdition and, ultimately, his own destruction; we love because we care enough to go out of our way and actually DO something for them, regardless of what may be required of us.
I often wonder why we Christians are not so aggressive when it comes to “intervention” on behalf of those whose souls are “in danger of the judgment”. And I don’t mean public protests and curses and name-calling against those who do not live according to our personal mandates and preferences. I mean a genuine, heartfelt, soulful, sanctified way of love by which we can see these persons and feel genuine care and concern for these persons because, through the spiritual growth that is sanctification, we have been empowered and enabled to see them through the eyes of the Lord.
Paul challenges the Philippians in much the same way, particularly when he challenges them to “imitate” him but most notably when he speaks of those “enemies of the Cross” for whom he weeps. There is a spiritual certainty within his compassion by which he is convinced that these people who worship their own “bellies” (i.e., fleshly desires) and are on the path of spiritual destruction are completely unaware of their impending doom, blinded as they are by their own selfish indulgences. In their blissful ignorance, these have become “enemies of the Cross” because they fail to comprehend the sacrificial nature of Christianity itself. Perhaps it is they fail to understand that when it comes to allegiance to Christ, there is no middle ground, there is no “kinda sorta”, there is no “after I finish everything else”. Jesus clearly admonishes His disciples that they either “is” or they “ain’t”, and that allegiance goes much further and much deeper than self-proclaimed salvation.
These to whom Paul refers – and these many whom we know today – are also the very ones to whom Jesus refers when He speaks of the many who were and are “unwilling” to be gathered into His protective embrace. And yet, in spite of their “unwillingness”, Jesus is still on the path of the mother of all “interventions” even as those on the path of self-destruction cannot appreciate it or even comprehend what is about to take place, so engrossed in their own lives as they are to the point of being deaf and blind, not only living in darkness but taking genuine joy and pleasure from it. Worse, perhaps, is that they find no shame.
St John Chrysostom, a 4th century Church father and bishop of Constantinople, reckoned that it might not be as bad to live such a life as one of such self-destruction “in secret” as it would to bring such behavior better suited to darkness out into the light. At least in the darkness, there is evidence of a conscience, an element of one’s being that may still have hope of redemption. These seem to at least be aware of their own shame and would much prefer that it not be so well known. For the “enemies of the Cross”, however, they bring what they believe to be their own “glory” into the light where it is revealed by the Word of the Lord, by the Light that is Christ, as their ultimate shame. Just as it will soon be their judgment and spiritual death. The Church does not use such language much anymore, does it?
For an example we could be so bold as to point to a protest which took place at a cathedral in Chicago on February 14. The church was celebrating its regular Sunday Mass but was also inviting married couples to renew their own vows to one another during the Mass. It was to be a celebration of married love. A homosexual rights group chose to use this cathedral and its celebratory Mass as a venue by which to “protest” the Catholic Church’s refusal to change its stand on homosexual behavior. These people obviously have no shame and are so blinded as to believe that the Lord God is subject to our protests. Even worse, they showed an utter disrespect and disregard for the rights of those in worship and for the rights of those who simply do not and will not agree with them.
Or we could choose other, less conspicuous examples of personal excess, selfish indulgences, ignoring the Body of Christ in favor of pursuing one’s own personal desires. And there are any number of examples that fall somewhere between the seemingly innocuous and the blatantly obvious. In the end, however, the standard of one’s own faith can be measured by the willful efforts made to grow in faith … and in Christ-like, sacrificial love; that love which ignores the needs and the glory of self and actively pursues the needs and the glory of others.
“Whatever”, that cavalier proclamation spanning a couple of generations that suggests a “take it or leave it” attitude, is not an option in the Body of Christ just as such condescension was not an option for Jesus. The commitment was as absolute and as unwavering as the compassion felt for those who kept – and still keep – the Church and life in the Body of Christ safely at arm’s length. There can be no such thing as a benign faith that simply exists but does not actually “live” and grow and flourish and that feels no shame in its contempt and hatefulness. Simply believing in a possibility or a concept is not the same as abiding faith.
I think there is much more that is exemplified in Jesus’ lamentation and Paul’s tears to those who are still working and striving and growing in such faith and in such love that they can appreciate Jesus’ sacrificial love even for those kept Him at arm’s length, those who “killed the prophets and stoned those who were sent” to them to proclaim the Day of the Lord, as well as for those many who were prepared – at all costs – to intervene and stop the cycle of self-destruction and ultimate judgment that will come sooner or later.
I read an article years ago written by a tax protester who not only tried to use the US Constitution to prove that he did not have to pay taxes but also used Paul’s statement of “citizenship” to prove that he was not subject to the nation’s laws because he was not a citizen of the US. It was a stretch, to say the least, but there have been others who have tried and failed. The problem with these few, however, is that they missed the entire point of what Paul was suggesting, blinded as they were by trying to use Scripture – and the Lord’s name in VAIN! – to their own selfish ends.
We cannot “use” our heavenly citizenship as a means to our own end, and we must not use our “resident” status to avoid those things we would rather not do. Instead, we embrace our faith and sanctification to do those things we GET TO DO, like share the Good News, to sacrifice even ourselves in spiritual “intervention” for those on the road to destruction.
The Truth is within us according to Holy Scripture. We are of a much higher calling than to simply grab all we can for ourselves. But if the “pursuit of happiness” means more to us than the Lord as our “light” and “salvation” and “stronghold”, if we are more apt to quote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence than we are Holy Scirpture, then we will spend our lives in blind indulgence and in constant fear of tomorrow because we fear we do not have “enough” today. We will become of those for whom Jesus lamented, those who refused His protective embrace and kept Him at arm’s length, refusing to heed His call to Eternal Life after the grave, and peace and contentment in this life before the grave.
The Lord have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us into everlasting Life.
Amen.
Luke 13:31-35
The other night at our OT Survey class I quoted a TV character and was promptly told that I probably watch too much TV. Well, I’ve admitted that much, but M*A*S*H and gangster movies don’t count as “too much”. Besides, sometimes even TV writers have something worth listening to!
Though I’ve never actually watched this particular show, A&E has a series called “Intervention” which is about addicts and their loved ones who pull out all the stops and “intervene” in their lives before they are completely destroyed. As it goes for addicts, including alcoholics, interventions become necessary because just when we might think someone has actually “hit bottom”, we find their downward spiral to be substantially “bottomless”. And we intervene because we genuinely care. We actually “love” that person whose life is spinning out of control, that person who is on the road to perdition and, ultimately, his own destruction; we love because we care enough to go out of our way and actually DO something for them, regardless of what may be required of us.
I often wonder why we Christians are not so aggressive when it comes to “intervention” on behalf of those whose souls are “in danger of the judgment”. And I don’t mean public protests and curses and name-calling against those who do not live according to our personal mandates and preferences. I mean a genuine, heartfelt, soulful, sanctified way of love by which we can see these persons and feel genuine care and concern for these persons because, through the spiritual growth that is sanctification, we have been empowered and enabled to see them through the eyes of the Lord.
Paul challenges the Philippians in much the same way, particularly when he challenges them to “imitate” him but most notably when he speaks of those “enemies of the Cross” for whom he weeps. There is a spiritual certainty within his compassion by which he is convinced that these people who worship their own “bellies” (i.e., fleshly desires) and are on the path of spiritual destruction are completely unaware of their impending doom, blinded as they are by their own selfish indulgences. In their blissful ignorance, these have become “enemies of the Cross” because they fail to comprehend the sacrificial nature of Christianity itself. Perhaps it is they fail to understand that when it comes to allegiance to Christ, there is no middle ground, there is no “kinda sorta”, there is no “after I finish everything else”. Jesus clearly admonishes His disciples that they either “is” or they “ain’t”, and that allegiance goes much further and much deeper than self-proclaimed salvation.
These to whom Paul refers – and these many whom we know today – are also the very ones to whom Jesus refers when He speaks of the many who were and are “unwilling” to be gathered into His protective embrace. And yet, in spite of their “unwillingness”, Jesus is still on the path of the mother of all “interventions” even as those on the path of self-destruction cannot appreciate it or even comprehend what is about to take place, so engrossed in their own lives as they are to the point of being deaf and blind, not only living in darkness but taking genuine joy and pleasure from it. Worse, perhaps, is that they find no shame.
St John Chrysostom, a 4th century Church father and bishop of Constantinople, reckoned that it might not be as bad to live such a life as one of such self-destruction “in secret” as it would to bring such behavior better suited to darkness out into the light. At least in the darkness, there is evidence of a conscience, an element of one’s being that may still have hope of redemption. These seem to at least be aware of their own shame and would much prefer that it not be so well known. For the “enemies of the Cross”, however, they bring what they believe to be their own “glory” into the light where it is revealed by the Word of the Lord, by the Light that is Christ, as their ultimate shame. Just as it will soon be their judgment and spiritual death. The Church does not use such language much anymore, does it?
For an example we could be so bold as to point to a protest which took place at a cathedral in Chicago on February 14. The church was celebrating its regular Sunday Mass but was also inviting married couples to renew their own vows to one another during the Mass. It was to be a celebration of married love. A homosexual rights group chose to use this cathedral and its celebratory Mass as a venue by which to “protest” the Catholic Church’s refusal to change its stand on homosexual behavior. These people obviously have no shame and are so blinded as to believe that the Lord God is subject to our protests. Even worse, they showed an utter disrespect and disregard for the rights of those in worship and for the rights of those who simply do not and will not agree with them.
Or we could choose other, less conspicuous examples of personal excess, selfish indulgences, ignoring the Body of Christ in favor of pursuing one’s own personal desires. And there are any number of examples that fall somewhere between the seemingly innocuous and the blatantly obvious. In the end, however, the standard of one’s own faith can be measured by the willful efforts made to grow in faith … and in Christ-like, sacrificial love; that love which ignores the needs and the glory of self and actively pursues the needs and the glory of others.
“Whatever”, that cavalier proclamation spanning a couple of generations that suggests a “take it or leave it” attitude, is not an option in the Body of Christ just as such condescension was not an option for Jesus. The commitment was as absolute and as unwavering as the compassion felt for those who kept – and still keep – the Church and life in the Body of Christ safely at arm’s length. There can be no such thing as a benign faith that simply exists but does not actually “live” and grow and flourish and that feels no shame in its contempt and hatefulness. Simply believing in a possibility or a concept is not the same as abiding faith.
I think there is much more that is exemplified in Jesus’ lamentation and Paul’s tears to those who are still working and striving and growing in such faith and in such love that they can appreciate Jesus’ sacrificial love even for those kept Him at arm’s length, those who “killed the prophets and stoned those who were sent” to them to proclaim the Day of the Lord, as well as for those many who were prepared – at all costs – to intervene and stop the cycle of self-destruction and ultimate judgment that will come sooner or later.
I read an article years ago written by a tax protester who not only tried to use the US Constitution to prove that he did not have to pay taxes but also used Paul’s statement of “citizenship” to prove that he was not subject to the nation’s laws because he was not a citizen of the US. It was a stretch, to say the least, but there have been others who have tried and failed. The problem with these few, however, is that they missed the entire point of what Paul was suggesting, blinded as they were by trying to use Scripture – and the Lord’s name in VAIN! – to their own selfish ends.
We cannot “use” our heavenly citizenship as a means to our own end, and we must not use our “resident” status to avoid those things we would rather not do. Instead, we embrace our faith and sanctification to do those things we GET TO DO, like share the Good News, to sacrifice even ourselves in spiritual “intervention” for those on the road to destruction.
The Truth is within us according to Holy Scripture. We are of a much higher calling than to simply grab all we can for ourselves. But if the “pursuit of happiness” means more to us than the Lord as our “light” and “salvation” and “stronghold”, if we are more apt to quote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence than we are Holy Scirpture, then we will spend our lives in blind indulgence and in constant fear of tomorrow because we fear we do not have “enough” today. We will become of those for whom Jesus lamented, those who refused His protective embrace and kept Him at arm’s length, refusing to heed His call to Eternal Life after the grave, and peace and contentment in this life before the grave.
The Lord have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us into everlasting Life.
Amen.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Checks and (Im)balances
Even as a Republican, I find no fault in a Democratic majority in Congress. Such an overwhelming and near super-majority, however, has the potential to become a foundational problem unique to the republic that is this country. The genuine problem exists, regardless of the party in majority, because the Madisonian system of checks and balances within the federal government is pushed completely out of balance. As it is, the legislative branch and its substantial majority is running in tandem with the executive branch rather than keeping the other in check, deficit spending is completely out of control, unsustainable levels of spending are being initiated, and the polled majority of Americans is completely disenchanted and disenfranchised.
"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government …This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State." – Federalist #51
What happens to the republic, then, when one branch of government virtually surrenders its constitutionally imposed independence from another, even by a vote of the people, to the point that there is no distinction between the two and the minority is all but ignored, regardless of the ideal or principle pursued? James Madison held, seemingly in spite of the intent of the Constitution as expressed in the preamble to “promote the general welfare”, that the rights of an individual should not be usurped.
It has been expressed by the so-called “Tea Party” movement that individual rights are being trampled in favor of the “general welfare” by way of the continuing debate on health care reform. The polled majority clearly rejects any and all government mandates in health care or health insurance matters, yet the majority in Congress seems to be following lock-step behind the president in seeing to a $1 trillion government-sponsored health care/insurance package that compels participation even by those who do not wish to participate. It is, as expressed recently by one speaker in the finest tradition of the Revolution, “taxation without representation” as we are forced to participate or help to finance such an aggressive government mandate.
There can be no easy answers to the dilemma now faced by the Republicans in Congress and those they have been elected to represent. As it happens, the party not in majority is always accused of being that “fly in the ointment” by which progress, in whatever form, is slowed. But when “progress” runs away so callously and so aggressively as to reject, ignore, and dismiss the concerns of those in the minority, we witness again the tyranny of the past by and through which the nation rose up in defiance. Reasonable men did not prevail, and needless bloodshed ensued.
Surely we can do much better today, especially in matters of health care, but such efforts toward a genuine greater good will require honor rather than power, an attribute I fear is in short supply even among the honorable due to the preponderance of anger and vindictiveness.
"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government …This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State." – Federalist #51
What happens to the republic, then, when one branch of government virtually surrenders its constitutionally imposed independence from another, even by a vote of the people, to the point that there is no distinction between the two and the minority is all but ignored, regardless of the ideal or principle pursued? James Madison held, seemingly in spite of the intent of the Constitution as expressed in the preamble to “promote the general welfare”, that the rights of an individual should not be usurped.
It has been expressed by the so-called “Tea Party” movement that individual rights are being trampled in favor of the “general welfare” by way of the continuing debate on health care reform. The polled majority clearly rejects any and all government mandates in health care or health insurance matters, yet the majority in Congress seems to be following lock-step behind the president in seeing to a $1 trillion government-sponsored health care/insurance package that compels participation even by those who do not wish to participate. It is, as expressed recently by one speaker in the finest tradition of the Revolution, “taxation without representation” as we are forced to participate or help to finance such an aggressive government mandate.
There can be no easy answers to the dilemma now faced by the Republicans in Congress and those they have been elected to represent. As it happens, the party not in majority is always accused of being that “fly in the ointment” by which progress, in whatever form, is slowed. But when “progress” runs away so callously and so aggressively as to reject, ignore, and dismiss the concerns of those in the minority, we witness again the tyranny of the past by and through which the nation rose up in defiance. Reasonable men did not prevail, and needless bloodshed ensued.
Surely we can do much better today, especially in matters of health care, but such efforts toward a genuine greater good will require honor rather than power, an attribute I fear is in short supply even among the honorable due to the preponderance of anger and vindictiveness.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Broken Barriers
Luke 4:1-13
O Lord our God, on this First Sunday of Lent as we prepare ourselves to endure the coming 40 days, by Your blessed and Holy Spirit, bring us to a remembrance of those times when we completely trusted You and You alone. Bless this gathering and time of worship, that our hearts and minds would be open to Your Presence and Your Grace. Make us mindful of our need to repent, and make us mindful of your mercy to forgive. In the Name and by the Blood of Your Beloved Son, we ask and we pray. Amen.
“When the devil had finished every test, He departed from [Jesus] until an opportune time.” – Luke 4:13
I often wonder if there is ever a time in which we are not being tested, at least to one degree or another, by the Lord or by the tempter. And in that vein, I wonder if this is the reason why the Bible and our own John Wesley admonished us to be in constant prayer, “praying without ceasing”, studying Scripture, attending to those means of grace and Sacraments of the Church and learning to look at the world through the Lord’s eyes and not our own. This, of course, is that state of spiritual perfection we strive to achieve as we continue to grow in faith and in love, but we are also reminded almost daily that we are not … quite … there … yet.
The way Luke presents it – or at least, the way our English translation presents Luke – the evil one had exhausted “every” test. To me this means the devil had run out of options…. for the moment. He offered to Jesus every possible temptation that would come near to destroying just about any other mortal human, and Jesus either passed these tests or He failed them – all depending, of course, on one’s perspective.
He passed, of course, according to His divine Being; He really could have done no less, but this we know only with our 20/20 biblical hindsight. Jesus depended on the Word of the Lord to see Him through these particular temptations, these worldly challenges. Yet according to what we might consider to be more “normal” standards of human living, He failed miserably.
Think about it. According to your standards and mine, what fool in his right mind would turn down all that Jesus had turned down: FOOD after a 40-day fast, unlimited power and authority over all the kingdoms of the world, or super-human strength so as to never be hurt or feel pain?? Think of how much we could do FOR THE LORD if we only had all these resources and these powers at our command and disposal! Isn’t this a more “normal” standard of how the faithful think in terms of worldly possessions and relationships?? And then to use Scripture passages, regardless of proper context or appropriate application and only in increments as they will personally suit us at any particular time, well, isn’t this also how the faithful world turns?
To wait “until an opportune time” is somewhat ominous because what is implied, if not outright stated, is that the battle between good and evil, between Heaven and hell is far from over. Surely the evil one saw this moment as much of an “opportune” time as there would be and knowing human behavior as he must surely know, if “now” does not quite work out, there will always be “later”. What is “opportune” on any given day may not work as well, for instance, three days after payday as it might three days BEFORE payday, right?
The “opportune” time is usually at our weak moments, when we are stressed, when we are under the gun in any given situation whether it is at work, at home, or at play. There will always be a “more” opportune time to trip someone up. Always. And isn’t it ironic that in these moments of weakness when we are more subject to temptation, it is also in these moments of weakness when the Lord is at His mightiest, according to St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)? Or is it that we are more susceptible to whatever influence will give us immediate relief or satisfaction? Of course, it all depends on which part of our self we choose to please and nurture.
The way this encounter reads, we are presented with an image of Jesus that is very hungry and maybe a bit physically weakened by the lack of food but is still calm, cool, and collected. The evil one offers one thing, and Jesus very casually dismisses him. However, some scholars suggest Jesus may have been internally conflicted. This is an interesting perspective when we consider that traditionally we have been taught that after His baptism, Jesus was led “by the Spirit”, of course, just as it is written, to deal exclusively with this imminent confrontation. In other words, Jesus knew by the Spirit exactly where He was going and what or whom He would be faced with.
Now to say that Jesus was simply going to the wilderness to pray and to fast in preparation for His earthly ministry is not off the mark, but it would be difficult to make this connection if He were to have been led only to deal with the evil one, the evil one perhaps waiting 40 days until Jesus is weakened to the point of human temptation. All of this matters and it all makes perfect sense, but we also must remember that Jesus was both divine and human. Surely it is possible for a conflict, at least on some level, to be present even within Jesus Himself. In fact, would a broader perspective on this passage suggest that the evil one could well represent the “flesh” that seems to be in almost constant conflict with the Spirit? Surely we can attest to this truth on any given day. Be hurt by someone? Hate them. It’s easy, it pleases us, and it suits us for the moment. But to forgive them? That takes some doing, some effort, some prayer, some spiritual discipline. We have to choose.
We know what struggle and temptation mean to us on a human level, but we don’t often make the disconnect between what we want and what we genuinely need because we confuse the two. To us, they are often one and the same. This “disconnect” is that barrier by which we relate to what we are tempted with only in how it will affect us physically or emotionally. In other words, we refuse something not because it may harm us spiritually but because it may wreck our diets, hurt our budgets, or damage a relationship. I dare suggest that we do not consider how powerful temptations can be and how spiritually destructive they can be if we surrender to them.
We are reminded on Ash Wednesday that there is a distinctive disconnect between our bodies and minds – and – our souls even as they can work in unison to a particular end. One will absolutely, positively, imminently die; there is no escape from this harsh truth even as we will virtually go to the ends of the earth and spare no expense in avoiding this certain reality.
The other seems more incidental to us and is often taken for granted. We don’t pay nearly as much attention to our spiritual well-being as we do our physical, mental, or emotional well-being. And we worry more about our human relationships than we do our spiritual one with the Lord. If we foul up with someone we love, we will pull out all the stops and beg and plead for forgiveness. But how many of us have heard Christians wave their hands and very casually, almost mindlessly say, ‘The Lord forgives me’ – yet they never really bothered to ask for that forgiveness. They simply expect it and thus take it for granted. How many of US are guilty of this very thing?
When we avoid those means of grace and those Sacraments of the Church, we avoid dealing with that better part of us which was imparted to us from Heaven and was given to us for a specific purpose: to empower us to reject evil and embrace good. We must surely understand that when humanity was created in the Divine Image, it had nothing to do with our faces, our skin tone, or the color of our hair. It stands to reason, then, that it is the SOUL that is the true reflection of that Divine part of us that requires as much, or more, attention than the rest of our being because it is the part which will endure forever.
There was once a barrier that prevented our human self from violating that spiritual and better part of our self. It was the Divine Image in which we were created. And that barrier was broken the day humanity chose the pleasure and self-satisfaction of the mortal self over the edification of the spiritual self, when it was made clear that we trust our own instincts over our soul that is informed, taught, and led by the Holy One. Once that barrier was broken, it just got easier to the point that today we attempt to re-create God into an image more aesthetically pleasing to our mortal, physical self.
As we navigate this challenge time that is Lent, let us recognize that better part of our self – our soul – as that part which enables and empowers us to reconstruct that broken barrier by learning again to Trust In Him, to surrender ourselves to Him so that He may, by His own Mighty Acts, restore us to that Divine Image. Amen.
Almighty and Everlasting God and Father, your blessed Son was led by the Spirit to be tempted by Satan and to prepare Himself for His earthly ministry. Come quickly to help us who are assaulted by these many and same temptations we face each day. And as You know the weakness of each of us, let each of us find You mighty to save – from ourselves AND from the evil one; through Christ Jesus our Lord, Your beloved Son. Amen.
O Lord our God, on this First Sunday of Lent as we prepare ourselves to endure the coming 40 days, by Your blessed and Holy Spirit, bring us to a remembrance of those times when we completely trusted You and You alone. Bless this gathering and time of worship, that our hearts and minds would be open to Your Presence and Your Grace. Make us mindful of our need to repent, and make us mindful of your mercy to forgive. In the Name and by the Blood of Your Beloved Son, we ask and we pray. Amen.
“When the devil had finished every test, He departed from [Jesus] until an opportune time.” – Luke 4:13
I often wonder if there is ever a time in which we are not being tested, at least to one degree or another, by the Lord or by the tempter. And in that vein, I wonder if this is the reason why the Bible and our own John Wesley admonished us to be in constant prayer, “praying without ceasing”, studying Scripture, attending to those means of grace and Sacraments of the Church and learning to look at the world through the Lord’s eyes and not our own. This, of course, is that state of spiritual perfection we strive to achieve as we continue to grow in faith and in love, but we are also reminded almost daily that we are not … quite … there … yet.
The way Luke presents it – or at least, the way our English translation presents Luke – the evil one had exhausted “every” test. To me this means the devil had run out of options…. for the moment. He offered to Jesus every possible temptation that would come near to destroying just about any other mortal human, and Jesus either passed these tests or He failed them – all depending, of course, on one’s perspective.
He passed, of course, according to His divine Being; He really could have done no less, but this we know only with our 20/20 biblical hindsight. Jesus depended on the Word of the Lord to see Him through these particular temptations, these worldly challenges. Yet according to what we might consider to be more “normal” standards of human living, He failed miserably.
Think about it. According to your standards and mine, what fool in his right mind would turn down all that Jesus had turned down: FOOD after a 40-day fast, unlimited power and authority over all the kingdoms of the world, or super-human strength so as to never be hurt or feel pain?? Think of how much we could do FOR THE LORD if we only had all these resources and these powers at our command and disposal! Isn’t this a more “normal” standard of how the faithful think in terms of worldly possessions and relationships?? And then to use Scripture passages, regardless of proper context or appropriate application and only in increments as they will personally suit us at any particular time, well, isn’t this also how the faithful world turns?
To wait “until an opportune time” is somewhat ominous because what is implied, if not outright stated, is that the battle between good and evil, between Heaven and hell is far from over. Surely the evil one saw this moment as much of an “opportune” time as there would be and knowing human behavior as he must surely know, if “now” does not quite work out, there will always be “later”. What is “opportune” on any given day may not work as well, for instance, three days after payday as it might three days BEFORE payday, right?
The “opportune” time is usually at our weak moments, when we are stressed, when we are under the gun in any given situation whether it is at work, at home, or at play. There will always be a “more” opportune time to trip someone up. Always. And isn’t it ironic that in these moments of weakness when we are more subject to temptation, it is also in these moments of weakness when the Lord is at His mightiest, according to St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)? Or is it that we are more susceptible to whatever influence will give us immediate relief or satisfaction? Of course, it all depends on which part of our self we choose to please and nurture.
The way this encounter reads, we are presented with an image of Jesus that is very hungry and maybe a bit physically weakened by the lack of food but is still calm, cool, and collected. The evil one offers one thing, and Jesus very casually dismisses him. However, some scholars suggest Jesus may have been internally conflicted. This is an interesting perspective when we consider that traditionally we have been taught that after His baptism, Jesus was led “by the Spirit”, of course, just as it is written, to deal exclusively with this imminent confrontation. In other words, Jesus knew by the Spirit exactly where He was going and what or whom He would be faced with.
Now to say that Jesus was simply going to the wilderness to pray and to fast in preparation for His earthly ministry is not off the mark, but it would be difficult to make this connection if He were to have been led only to deal with the evil one, the evil one perhaps waiting 40 days until Jesus is weakened to the point of human temptation. All of this matters and it all makes perfect sense, but we also must remember that Jesus was both divine and human. Surely it is possible for a conflict, at least on some level, to be present even within Jesus Himself. In fact, would a broader perspective on this passage suggest that the evil one could well represent the “flesh” that seems to be in almost constant conflict with the Spirit? Surely we can attest to this truth on any given day. Be hurt by someone? Hate them. It’s easy, it pleases us, and it suits us for the moment. But to forgive them? That takes some doing, some effort, some prayer, some spiritual discipline. We have to choose.
We know what struggle and temptation mean to us on a human level, but we don’t often make the disconnect between what we want and what we genuinely need because we confuse the two. To us, they are often one and the same. This “disconnect” is that barrier by which we relate to what we are tempted with only in how it will affect us physically or emotionally. In other words, we refuse something not because it may harm us spiritually but because it may wreck our diets, hurt our budgets, or damage a relationship. I dare suggest that we do not consider how powerful temptations can be and how spiritually destructive they can be if we surrender to them.
We are reminded on Ash Wednesday that there is a distinctive disconnect between our bodies and minds – and – our souls even as they can work in unison to a particular end. One will absolutely, positively, imminently die; there is no escape from this harsh truth even as we will virtually go to the ends of the earth and spare no expense in avoiding this certain reality.
The other seems more incidental to us and is often taken for granted. We don’t pay nearly as much attention to our spiritual well-being as we do our physical, mental, or emotional well-being. And we worry more about our human relationships than we do our spiritual one with the Lord. If we foul up with someone we love, we will pull out all the stops and beg and plead for forgiveness. But how many of us have heard Christians wave their hands and very casually, almost mindlessly say, ‘The Lord forgives me’ – yet they never really bothered to ask for that forgiveness. They simply expect it and thus take it for granted. How many of US are guilty of this very thing?
When we avoid those means of grace and those Sacraments of the Church, we avoid dealing with that better part of us which was imparted to us from Heaven and was given to us for a specific purpose: to empower us to reject evil and embrace good. We must surely understand that when humanity was created in the Divine Image, it had nothing to do with our faces, our skin tone, or the color of our hair. It stands to reason, then, that it is the SOUL that is the true reflection of that Divine part of us that requires as much, or more, attention than the rest of our being because it is the part which will endure forever.
There was once a barrier that prevented our human self from violating that spiritual and better part of our self. It was the Divine Image in which we were created. And that barrier was broken the day humanity chose the pleasure and self-satisfaction of the mortal self over the edification of the spiritual self, when it was made clear that we trust our own instincts over our soul that is informed, taught, and led by the Holy One. Once that barrier was broken, it just got easier to the point that today we attempt to re-create God into an image more aesthetically pleasing to our mortal, physical self.
As we navigate this challenge time that is Lent, let us recognize that better part of our self – our soul – as that part which enables and empowers us to reconstruct that broken barrier by learning again to Trust In Him, to surrender ourselves to Him so that He may, by His own Mighty Acts, restore us to that Divine Image. Amen.
Almighty and Everlasting God and Father, your blessed Son was led by the Spirit to be tempted by Satan and to prepare Himself for His earthly ministry. Come quickly to help us who are assaulted by these many and same temptations we face each day. And as You know the weakness of each of us, let each of us find You mighty to save – from ourselves AND from the evil one; through Christ Jesus our Lord, Your beloved Son. Amen.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Truth Hurts
Las Vegas NV mayor Oscar Goodman is still stinging from President Obama having singled out that town as an example of what not to do if money is tight, so much so that the mayor has refused an invitation to meet with the president while he’s in town. The president simply said, and I say this as a non-supporter of Mr. Obama, that we must all set our own priorities according to our own means and needs: don’t spend a weekend in Vegas if you’re saving for your kids’ college. What’s wrong with that?
What is wrong with that is that Vegas depends heavily, if not entirely, on tourism and gambling, and apparently Mr. Obama has referenced Las Vegas and perhaps Reno more than once in speaking about priorities. For you and me, it is important that we save our money. For Goodman, it is important that we come to Vegas and spend our money - and then leave with empty pockets.
Come on, America. There is plenty with which to take issue against President Obama but when he’s right, he’s right. Give him a little credit. Maybe he’s not a gambler. Maybe he and his wife are as successful as they are because they do not take unnecessary or foolish risks. Maybe they recognize that with limited resources, there are limited choices. Maybe Mr. Obama’s point would not have been lost had he simply said something like, ‘there are less expensive vacations and get-aways than gambling junkets’. Then again, the president would then likely have over-torqued the screws of more than one city mayor since gambling has become so pervasive in this country.
So what? Those who do not have money to burn are indeed fools if they take their limited resources and lay them on a craps table (surely there is a relevant reason why it is called “craps”) or buy lottery tickets. They have that freedom, that right to do what they please with what they have, however much or little they do have, but maybe sometimes we all need to be kicked in the teeth when we become so overwhelmed with our own brand of stupid that we cannot see how ridiculous we can sometimes be when we forget that with “rights” come “responsibility”.
I’m not crazy about the choices Mr. Obama has made as president and I’ve lost all confidence in this administration (not like there was much to lose although I try always to be at least hopeful) and this Congress. This does not mean that the president cannot sometimes say something worth listening to: if you do not have it to blow, don’t blow it!
What is wrong with that is that Vegas depends heavily, if not entirely, on tourism and gambling, and apparently Mr. Obama has referenced Las Vegas and perhaps Reno more than once in speaking about priorities. For you and me, it is important that we save our money. For Goodman, it is important that we come to Vegas and spend our money - and then leave with empty pockets.
Come on, America. There is plenty with which to take issue against President Obama but when he’s right, he’s right. Give him a little credit. Maybe he’s not a gambler. Maybe he and his wife are as successful as they are because they do not take unnecessary or foolish risks. Maybe they recognize that with limited resources, there are limited choices. Maybe Mr. Obama’s point would not have been lost had he simply said something like, ‘there are less expensive vacations and get-aways than gambling junkets’. Then again, the president would then likely have over-torqued the screws of more than one city mayor since gambling has become so pervasive in this country.
So what? Those who do not have money to burn are indeed fools if they take their limited resources and lay them on a craps table (surely there is a relevant reason why it is called “craps”) or buy lottery tickets. They have that freedom, that right to do what they please with what they have, however much or little they do have, but maybe sometimes we all need to be kicked in the teeth when we become so overwhelmed with our own brand of stupid that we cannot see how ridiculous we can sometimes be when we forget that with “rights” come “responsibility”.
I’m not crazy about the choices Mr. Obama has made as president and I’ve lost all confidence in this administration (not like there was much to lose although I try always to be at least hopeful) and this Congress. This does not mean that the president cannot sometimes say something worth listening to: if you do not have it to blow, don’t blow it!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thus Begins the Journey
Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21
For many, Ash Wednesday is very nearly comical especially if done in the morning because it gives folks all day to make wise cracks about the “smudge” on our foreheads while trying not to be disrespectful of our faith or our religion. Still, even among the faithful Ash Wednesday is not taken very seriously. It has, unfortunately, been reduced to little more than a dogmatic “something we do”, sort of like “opening ceremonies” into that strange time in the church calendar called Lent. Lent will still be Lent whether we attend an Ash Wednesday service or not.
The significance of Ash Wednesday is epitomized in what Jesus is teaching the disciples in Matthew’s Gospel, summed up in vs. 21: Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also, but there is much more to the significance of Ash Wednesday, far more than a mere mark of time or smudge on the forehead. Before we can enter into the season of Lent and begin that incredible – and, yes, necessarily painful - journey to the Cross, there is something we must be mindful of first.
This small passage [from Matthew] is taken too often to mean exclusively material possessions. This is not entirely wrong, of course, but there is no single category exclusive to this passage because our hearts are broad and our desires varied. It is not only material possessions that come between us and the Lord. I recall a political science class I took a few years ago in which the instructor challenged us to name just one part of our lives that is not affected by politics. Whether or not we would agree with any particular public policy was not the point. The point was simply that there is no portion of our lives that is not addressed or affected, directly or indirectly, by public policy. In this same vein, then, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no thing and no person that does not have at least the potential to come between us and the Lord.
It has been debated in philosophy and theology whether we are bodies with souls – or – souls with bodies. The debate centers on which is purposeful and which is incidental, which is primary and which is secondary. Can one act independently of the other? If so, which one is dependent? In other words, does the body tell the soul how the cow ate the cabbage – or – does the soul inform and influence the actions of the body? Obviously the answers will depend on one’s perspective. The Talmud offers this much: The character of a life depends upon the care which the individual devotes to keeping his soul pure and unstained.
Throughout other Talmudic literature there are taught the distinctions between the soul and the body, the soul being that portion of us which enables us to choose the good and reject the evil. However, we are painfully aware of that other certain fact: we have minds filled with thoughts, principles, and ideals that are imparted to us as we grow and learn. We are influenced by our senses that pick up on things which please us, things which seem to make perfect sense and fit so well into our lives, especially since we also live in a world in which it is proclaimed as a virtual doctrine and virtue of man: look out for #1.
Clearly our bodies (including our minds) are influenced by external forces that surround us throughout our lives while our souls, imparted to us from Heaven, come predisposed toward good and equipped with the ability to identify and reject evil. Somewhere along the line, it becomes a matter of will. The struggle which seems to be inherent to our very existence, body and soul, from the beginning is a matter of worldly influence and spiritual contemplation.
This all brought to mind the movie, “Radio”, with Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding, Jr. Cuba played the part of “Radio”, a mentally handicapped man who was befriended by “Coach” Ed Harris. Long story made short, “Coach” came to realize while we may presume to have the desire and the need to “teach” such folks as “Radio”, in reality it is folks like “Radio” who teach us – if we are willing to learn. “Radio” was not the handicapped one; it is we who are handicapped who are unable or unwilling to see, and be influenced by, the goodness that surrounds us. As “Coach” pointed out, “Radio treats us ALL THE TIME the way we wish we treated each other even PART OF THE TIME.” We of a more cynical if worldly nature, we who call ourselves “normal”, have been conditioned and have conditioned ourselves toward survival and self-indulgence. This is the body which is at odds with that predisposed and divine soul.
Ash Wednesday is an important discipline that helps us to begin the incredible journey called Lent by challenging us to empty ourselves of all those conditions, those things, those persons, those influences that serve to do little more than to separate us from the Holy. It is the time when we are reminded of the curse of our humanity, that free will curse that chose knowledge over faith, when humanity chose the mortal body over the immortal soul. It is where the truly desired “treasure” of self was chosen, and humanity was cast out – body AND soul – from Paradise, that perfect place and state of being for which we were created in the very beginning.
It is the time when we are reminded that our bodies are simply the dust of the earth, to which they are destined to return. That is the value and worth of our mere mortal bodies in the realm of eternity. The state of our souls, however, will be determined by how we navigate this incredible journey and how near to the Cross we will choose to go.
Amen.
For many, Ash Wednesday is very nearly comical especially if done in the morning because it gives folks all day to make wise cracks about the “smudge” on our foreheads while trying not to be disrespectful of our faith or our religion. Still, even among the faithful Ash Wednesday is not taken very seriously. It has, unfortunately, been reduced to little more than a dogmatic “something we do”, sort of like “opening ceremonies” into that strange time in the church calendar called Lent. Lent will still be Lent whether we attend an Ash Wednesday service or not.
The significance of Ash Wednesday is epitomized in what Jesus is teaching the disciples in Matthew’s Gospel, summed up in vs. 21: Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also, but there is much more to the significance of Ash Wednesday, far more than a mere mark of time or smudge on the forehead. Before we can enter into the season of Lent and begin that incredible – and, yes, necessarily painful - journey to the Cross, there is something we must be mindful of first.
This small passage [from Matthew] is taken too often to mean exclusively material possessions. This is not entirely wrong, of course, but there is no single category exclusive to this passage because our hearts are broad and our desires varied. It is not only material possessions that come between us and the Lord. I recall a political science class I took a few years ago in which the instructor challenged us to name just one part of our lives that is not affected by politics. Whether or not we would agree with any particular public policy was not the point. The point was simply that there is no portion of our lives that is not addressed or affected, directly or indirectly, by public policy. In this same vein, then, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no thing and no person that does not have at least the potential to come between us and the Lord.
It has been debated in philosophy and theology whether we are bodies with souls – or – souls with bodies. The debate centers on which is purposeful and which is incidental, which is primary and which is secondary. Can one act independently of the other? If so, which one is dependent? In other words, does the body tell the soul how the cow ate the cabbage – or – does the soul inform and influence the actions of the body? Obviously the answers will depend on one’s perspective. The Talmud offers this much: The character of a life depends upon the care which the individual devotes to keeping his soul pure and unstained.
Throughout other Talmudic literature there are taught the distinctions between the soul and the body, the soul being that portion of us which enables us to choose the good and reject the evil. However, we are painfully aware of that other certain fact: we have minds filled with thoughts, principles, and ideals that are imparted to us as we grow and learn. We are influenced by our senses that pick up on things which please us, things which seem to make perfect sense and fit so well into our lives, especially since we also live in a world in which it is proclaimed as a virtual doctrine and virtue of man: look out for #1.
Clearly our bodies (including our minds) are influenced by external forces that surround us throughout our lives while our souls, imparted to us from Heaven, come predisposed toward good and equipped with the ability to identify and reject evil. Somewhere along the line, it becomes a matter of will. The struggle which seems to be inherent to our very existence, body and soul, from the beginning is a matter of worldly influence and spiritual contemplation.
This all brought to mind the movie, “Radio”, with Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding, Jr. Cuba played the part of “Radio”, a mentally handicapped man who was befriended by “Coach” Ed Harris. Long story made short, “Coach” came to realize while we may presume to have the desire and the need to “teach” such folks as “Radio”, in reality it is folks like “Radio” who teach us – if we are willing to learn. “Radio” was not the handicapped one; it is we who are handicapped who are unable or unwilling to see, and be influenced by, the goodness that surrounds us. As “Coach” pointed out, “Radio treats us ALL THE TIME the way we wish we treated each other even PART OF THE TIME.” We of a more cynical if worldly nature, we who call ourselves “normal”, have been conditioned and have conditioned ourselves toward survival and self-indulgence. This is the body which is at odds with that predisposed and divine soul.
Ash Wednesday is an important discipline that helps us to begin the incredible journey called Lent by challenging us to empty ourselves of all those conditions, those things, those persons, those influences that serve to do little more than to separate us from the Holy. It is the time when we are reminded of the curse of our humanity, that free will curse that chose knowledge over faith, when humanity chose the mortal body over the immortal soul. It is where the truly desired “treasure” of self was chosen, and humanity was cast out – body AND soul – from Paradise, that perfect place and state of being for which we were created in the very beginning.
It is the time when we are reminded that our bodies are simply the dust of the earth, to which they are destined to return. That is the value and worth of our mere mortal bodies in the realm of eternity. The state of our souls, however, will be determined by how we navigate this incredible journey and how near to the Cross we will choose to go.
Amen.
Hear No Evil ...
Not that I completely disagree with the Palins in this latest battle with TV’s “Family Guy”, a ridiculous animated show (not a serious endeavor like my beloved “South Park”, of course) in which nothing is sacred. Not that such things should not be challenged at least on some fundamental level, of course, because ignorance and bigotry run amuck is justice denied. We as a nation are a little better than that. However, in this particular case and with Gov. Palin’s scrap with David Letterman still relatively fresh, something becomes clear, I think: the Palins perhaps spend too much time watching TV. And I say this because surely they have actually seen and heard for themselves (rather than heard about) that which they judge to be offensive.
I think many are sure Gov. Palin may be spending so much time on the road and giving speeches because she is positioning herself for a possible presidential run in 2012. No problem in that, of course, but here is a very serious problem: she may be a little too sensitive for her own good AND she needs to pick her battles. A chief executive cannot possibly address every single issue and its minute details that come down the pike, so the president must prioritize and delegate. If Mrs. Palin has delegated her daughter to seek out and/or deal with these issues that really are not issues, then so much for the judgment of this potential candidate.
This nation has some serious problems that require serious solutions. Spending too much time worrying about TV personalities and animated shows, both of which are impossible to take seriously, may indicate a very shallow perspective on what is truly important. A naïve belief that all social idiots and insensitive jerks can or even should be dealt with is naiveté at its very worst, and there is no place in the Oval Office for that.
The current administration alone should be ample proof that idealism, even at its very best, must be tempered with a certain realism by which we can imagine a better world and work toward a better world, but we cannot demand it by simply complaining about it or calling names through the media. Take a look at how congressional Democrats and Republicans deal with one another. THEY DON’T. They “release” letters to one another through the national media (do they ever actually mail them or send them to the intended recipient via courier?) and they stand at the rotunda and give speeches filled with accusations toward one another, but they don’t talk to one another.
Gov. Palin may give great and rousing speeches and be a good cheerleader for the GOP, but the Democrats have President Obama. See how well that seems to be working for them.
I think many are sure Gov. Palin may be spending so much time on the road and giving speeches because she is positioning herself for a possible presidential run in 2012. No problem in that, of course, but here is a very serious problem: she may be a little too sensitive for her own good AND she needs to pick her battles. A chief executive cannot possibly address every single issue and its minute details that come down the pike, so the president must prioritize and delegate. If Mrs. Palin has delegated her daughter to seek out and/or deal with these issues that really are not issues, then so much for the judgment of this potential candidate.
This nation has some serious problems that require serious solutions. Spending too much time worrying about TV personalities and animated shows, both of which are impossible to take seriously, may indicate a very shallow perspective on what is truly important. A naïve belief that all social idiots and insensitive jerks can or even should be dealt with is naiveté at its very worst, and there is no place in the Oval Office for that.
The current administration alone should be ample proof that idealism, even at its very best, must be tempered with a certain realism by which we can imagine a better world and work toward a better world, but we cannot demand it by simply complaining about it or calling names through the media. Take a look at how congressional Democrats and Republicans deal with one another. THEY DON’T. They “release” letters to one another through the national media (do they ever actually mail them or send them to the intended recipient via courier?) and they stand at the rotunda and give speeches filled with accusations toward one another, but they don’t talk to one another.
Gov. Palin may give great and rousing speeches and be a good cheerleader for the GOP, but the Democrats have President Obama. See how well that seems to be working for them.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Majesty of it All
Exodus 34:29-35
Luke 9:28-36
Holy God and Father, upon the mountain You revealed Your Messiah, who by His death and Resurrection would fulfill both the Law and the Prophets. By His Transfiguration enlighten our path that we may dare to share and suffer with Him in the service of humanity and so share in the everlasting glory of Him who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit. One God, forever and ever. AMEN.
Last year on Transfiguration Sunday, I shared this: Moses and Elijah could well be a part of the “great cloud of witnesses”, those having lived such lives to which we should all aspire while we also recognize that we cannot have Jesus without the journey to the Cross. It is admirable, perhaps, to want to build dwellings for these so their glorified presence can be known, but this world is not where they belong. They had their time and their task, and they fulfilled these faithfully. Now it is our time, and our task lay just ahead.
We do not “belong here”, either. But we have our places here just as they did. And we will one day have our places in the light of the glory witnessed by Jesus’ disciples. And spoken of only AFTER the Resurrection. Because, I think, that is ultimately the Way – and destination - of the Cross.
It is rare, if ever, that I go back and dig through old sermons because I believe that if the Word of the Lord is living and dynamic – and I do – then it is utterly unfair to rehash old thoughts. If the Lord is continually moving in and through us, then we must continually be moving in and through Him – but forward, not backward. An entire year has passed since I spoke those words, and we would all hope I’ve learned at least a little something in the course of a year! Besides, it is often that I read my old stuff and wonder just what in the world I was thinking when I wrote it!!
I remember Billy Graham once preaching that the Bible gives us very little information about hell except in Luke’s Gospel about Lazarus and the rich man (16:19-26). By the same token, the Gospels give us very little of a literal view of the full glory of the Lord except in the Transfiguration. There are also glorified images in the apocalyptic literature of the last days, such as in Revelation and Daniel, but in all instances we are given the best description human words can offer to describe that which is fully incomprehensible. The 2nd century scholar and theologian, Origen, put it this way: [Jesus] is beheld in the form of God according to our capacity for knowledge.
So it is in the limited capacity of our ability to comprehend by which we are shown the fullness of the Divine Glory and Majesty, not unlike the days when Moses descended from the mountain “with the skin of his face … shining” so much so that the Israelites “were afraid to come near him.” They knew something remarkable had taken place and they knew Moses had had an encounter with the Lord but because it was beyond their ability to understand what they were seeing, it made them afraid.
The disciples were “terrified”, according to Luke, as they were overshadowed by that great cloud from which the Voice of the Lord affirmed what Peter had previously confessed (Luke 9:20a): that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Moses and Elijah join Jesus in this moment in eternity and, according to Luke, speak with Him concerning His impending death. NRSV uses the term, “departure”, but Greek translations suggest a more literal use of “exodus” to more accurately describe what will soon take place in Jerusalem. If we think in terms of “exodus” rather than merely “departure”, then we can segue from Epiphany to Lent and, ultimately, to Easter not only in the earthly life of Jesus Himself but also in the life cycle of the faithful – here and now and for what is to come, even if we are incapable of comprehending.
Something really big is taking place at this incredible moment of the Transfiguration, and the disciples maybe came very near to missing the whole thing, “weighed down with sleep” as they were, but the language of Luke also seems to suggest they managed to somehow stay awake in spite of their fatigue, making the encounter surreal, almost dream-like. And this may be significant because the Lord has spoken so often and so clearly to many of his prophets by way of dreams. It is during this state when we are most vulnerable, of course, but we are also quiet, still, and better able to hear what the Lord says because we are not distracted by the noise of the world. In our dreams the Lord has our undivided attention.
In this moment in eternity, what we may be witnessing is the complete, unabridged, and unmanipulated (by human thought and opinion) image of the fullness and glory of the Lord’s majesty in the Law (Moses), the prophets (Elijah) and the Gospel (the Good News in and through the Christ). Even with all this, while we may be getting a small taste of a Divine Image, there is also something much more that is being presented to us: the “conversation” Luke refers to of Jesus’ impending “departure”, or “exodus”.
Thinking in terms of the Exodus of the OT when the Israelites were set free from bondage, the imagery is made more powerful for us when we grasp the notion that even though the Lord came to us freely in the person of Jesus, there may still be the need to somehow be set “free” from that human body, divine though He was because humanity has limits. As was previously shared, there is only so much we can do. Thinking about Jesus performing miracles in that human body, there are still limits to even His humanity; the human body, resilient though it may be, can only take so much especially in a world that is utterly and completely, if only physically, separated from the Divine.
Just as the Israelites had to be freed from their human bondage by incomprehensible power, so must we be released from our own humanity and the incomprehensible power of sin and death by sharing in the divinity of the Christ, if only for a moment, in the Eucharist, when we are in complete submission and sharing in the Passover meal just before the New Exodus, prepared as we must be to follow Him without hesitation or reservation into what will soon be our New Reality. It is within this context that John Wesley encouraged Methodists to share the Lord’s Supper as often as they gathered together in His Holy Name.
Before we can go WITH Him, however, we must prepare ourselves THROUGH Him. This preparation necessarily includes those means of grace, including the Sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion, so that we can be enabled to endure the journey He endured while on this earth. We share in His earthly experiences so that we may soon share in His Heavenly Glory. The Transfiguration was necessary not only as a means of revealing the fullness and majesty of the Heavenly Glory of the Lord, but also as The End to which we must all aspire: life without end.
Amen.
Luke 9:28-36
Holy God and Father, upon the mountain You revealed Your Messiah, who by His death and Resurrection would fulfill both the Law and the Prophets. By His Transfiguration enlighten our path that we may dare to share and suffer with Him in the service of humanity and so share in the everlasting glory of Him who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit. One God, forever and ever. AMEN.
Last year on Transfiguration Sunday, I shared this: Moses and Elijah could well be a part of the “great cloud of witnesses”, those having lived such lives to which we should all aspire while we also recognize that we cannot have Jesus without the journey to the Cross. It is admirable, perhaps, to want to build dwellings for these so their glorified presence can be known, but this world is not where they belong. They had their time and their task, and they fulfilled these faithfully. Now it is our time, and our task lay just ahead.
We do not “belong here”, either. But we have our places here just as they did. And we will one day have our places in the light of the glory witnessed by Jesus’ disciples. And spoken of only AFTER the Resurrection. Because, I think, that is ultimately the Way – and destination - of the Cross.
It is rare, if ever, that I go back and dig through old sermons because I believe that if the Word of the Lord is living and dynamic – and I do – then it is utterly unfair to rehash old thoughts. If the Lord is continually moving in and through us, then we must continually be moving in and through Him – but forward, not backward. An entire year has passed since I spoke those words, and we would all hope I’ve learned at least a little something in the course of a year! Besides, it is often that I read my old stuff and wonder just what in the world I was thinking when I wrote it!!
I remember Billy Graham once preaching that the Bible gives us very little information about hell except in Luke’s Gospel about Lazarus and the rich man (16:19-26). By the same token, the Gospels give us very little of a literal view of the full glory of the Lord except in the Transfiguration. There are also glorified images in the apocalyptic literature of the last days, such as in Revelation and Daniel, but in all instances we are given the best description human words can offer to describe that which is fully incomprehensible. The 2nd century scholar and theologian, Origen, put it this way: [Jesus] is beheld in the form of God according to our capacity for knowledge.
So it is in the limited capacity of our ability to comprehend by which we are shown the fullness of the Divine Glory and Majesty, not unlike the days when Moses descended from the mountain “with the skin of his face … shining” so much so that the Israelites “were afraid to come near him.” They knew something remarkable had taken place and they knew Moses had had an encounter with the Lord but because it was beyond their ability to understand what they were seeing, it made them afraid.
The disciples were “terrified”, according to Luke, as they were overshadowed by that great cloud from which the Voice of the Lord affirmed what Peter had previously confessed (Luke 9:20a): that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Moses and Elijah join Jesus in this moment in eternity and, according to Luke, speak with Him concerning His impending death. NRSV uses the term, “departure”, but Greek translations suggest a more literal use of “exodus” to more accurately describe what will soon take place in Jerusalem. If we think in terms of “exodus” rather than merely “departure”, then we can segue from Epiphany to Lent and, ultimately, to Easter not only in the earthly life of Jesus Himself but also in the life cycle of the faithful – here and now and for what is to come, even if we are incapable of comprehending.
Something really big is taking place at this incredible moment of the Transfiguration, and the disciples maybe came very near to missing the whole thing, “weighed down with sleep” as they were, but the language of Luke also seems to suggest they managed to somehow stay awake in spite of their fatigue, making the encounter surreal, almost dream-like. And this may be significant because the Lord has spoken so often and so clearly to many of his prophets by way of dreams. It is during this state when we are most vulnerable, of course, but we are also quiet, still, and better able to hear what the Lord says because we are not distracted by the noise of the world. In our dreams the Lord has our undivided attention.
In this moment in eternity, what we may be witnessing is the complete, unabridged, and unmanipulated (by human thought and opinion) image of the fullness and glory of the Lord’s majesty in the Law (Moses), the prophets (Elijah) and the Gospel (the Good News in and through the Christ). Even with all this, while we may be getting a small taste of a Divine Image, there is also something much more that is being presented to us: the “conversation” Luke refers to of Jesus’ impending “departure”, or “exodus”.
Thinking in terms of the Exodus of the OT when the Israelites were set free from bondage, the imagery is made more powerful for us when we grasp the notion that even though the Lord came to us freely in the person of Jesus, there may still be the need to somehow be set “free” from that human body, divine though He was because humanity has limits. As was previously shared, there is only so much we can do. Thinking about Jesus performing miracles in that human body, there are still limits to even His humanity; the human body, resilient though it may be, can only take so much especially in a world that is utterly and completely, if only physically, separated from the Divine.
Just as the Israelites had to be freed from their human bondage by incomprehensible power, so must we be released from our own humanity and the incomprehensible power of sin and death by sharing in the divinity of the Christ, if only for a moment, in the Eucharist, when we are in complete submission and sharing in the Passover meal just before the New Exodus, prepared as we must be to follow Him without hesitation or reservation into what will soon be our New Reality. It is within this context that John Wesley encouraged Methodists to share the Lord’s Supper as often as they gathered together in His Holy Name.
Before we can go WITH Him, however, we must prepare ourselves THROUGH Him. This preparation necessarily includes those means of grace, including the Sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion, so that we can be enabled to endure the journey He endured while on this earth. We share in His earthly experiences so that we may soon share in His Heavenly Glory. The Transfiguration was necessary not only as a means of revealing the fullness and majesty of the Heavenly Glory of the Lord, but also as The End to which we must all aspire: life without end.
Amen.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Pure Religion
Luke 5:1-11
A couple of thoughts from John Wesley:
• In the year 1725, being in the twenty-third year of my age, I met with Bishop Taylor's Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and Dying. In reading several parts of this book, I was exceedingly affected; that part in particular which relates to purity of intention. Instantly I resolved to dedicate all my life to God, all my thoughts, and words, and actions; being thoroughly convinced, there was no medium; but that every part of my life (not some only) must either be a sacrifice to God, or myself, that is, in effect, to the devil. Can any serious person doubt of this, or find a medium between serving God and serving the devil?
• In the year 1729, I began not only to read, but to study, the Bible, as the one, the only standard of truth, and the only model of pure religion. Hence I saw, in a clearer and clearer light, the indispensable necessity of having "the mind which was in Christ," and of "walking as Christ also walked;" even of having, not some part only, but all the mind which was in him; and of walking as he walked, not only in many or in most respects, but in all things. And this was the light, wherein at this time I generally considered religion, as an uniform following of Christ, an entire inward and outward conformity to our Master.
Even though the year has only just begun, it’s already been a busy one. There have been those heart-wrenching appeals from UMCOR and other agencies for Haiti’s earthquake recovery efforts and UMCOR’s continued work in Indonesia, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world; there was the “Catch the Vision” appeal and the Wesley Foundation, the Hannah Medical Baby Bottle Campaign, the regular tithes and offerings, and the other grateful recipients of your benevolence and generosity. When the dust finally began to settle, I found myself agreeing almost mindlessly to the MDA lock-up thing for “Jerry’s kids”, and now we are handing out the Lenten jars to prepare for our annual gift to mission. And let’s not forget Emily’s need for 500lbs of sugar for the homeless shelter!
Before I entered the preaching ministry, I was lay leader at another church. I recall a time when it seemed that no matter which way I turned, someone had his or her hand out in an appeal for money. Some were fund-raisers for one thing or another, some were charitable endeavors, but all were important in their own way and in their own place. When the fund-raisers began setting up in the narthex and virtually blocked the door into the sanctuary, however, I began to make some noise because what I believed I was witnessing was the creation of an inhospitable worship environment.
Visitors who were not familiar with the goings-on at our little church felt like they had to pay “admission” to attend worship! What is worse is that these efforts “weeded out” those who just did not have the money to spare, or they were made to feel as though what they had given was “not enough”. It was not that they did not want to give; it simply was that they didn’t have any more to give – so they stopped coming. Often I didn’t even want to be there. It made me think of Jesus’ efforts to cleanse the Temple and rid the place of the money-changers who sold overpriced, but arguably necessary, items for worship such as animals and “local money”. Jesus blasted them all by accusing them of turning the Holy Father’s “house of prayer” into a “den of thieves”. I don’t think we’re quite there, of course, but I see the necessity of raising the “red flag” so that we evaluate what we do and why we do it.
It is fair and honest that we should be made aware of what is happening in our communities and in our United Methodist Church, at home and abroad. Indeed, it is a way by which we take ownership through our apportionments for the work of the Church and to know what is going on and to be given an opportunity to help where we can. In the midst of “information overload”, however, is the very real danger of distractions of such an overwhelming magnitude that we forget why we gather here in the first place. I guess I’m always mindful of, and a little sensitive to, the many who have walked away and freely separated themselves from the Body of Christ because of the so-called “money grubbers”, those who stand accused of making “church” about little more than the acquisition of money to create a “feel good” religion consisting of dollars but very little sense of self, purpose, or mission.
In Luke’s gospel (5:1-11) we clearly see the power of the Lord working, but I don’t think we see clearly enough that there is far more to the story than simply a boat-load of fish, a miracle of sorts attributed to the Lord since they didn’t catch anything before. There is an analogy at work in the story that probably doesn’t get the attention it deserves. It is a prelude of things to come for the disciples … and for Christ’s Holy Church. And it has not so much to do with the fish or the nets themselves but what must take place before the first net is cast. It is a matter of not only knowing where to cast the nets … but when … and how often. And there is only One Way we are going to come by that knowledge. Anything outside of this is a guess.
As the earlier quotes from John Wesley indicated, he was also aware of the dangers of the many distractions we are continually faced with, as much within the Church as out. There is not a charity or a church mission out there that does not deserve at least our prayerful consideration, but we must also be mindful of our limitations; there is only so much we can do. Even in my morning prayer time, I get a little overwhelmed myself whenever I try to remember everyone and everything I’ve been requested to pray for. Needless to say, the list is endless! Whenever I walk away from the prayer time, I often feel like such an utter failure because there is never a time that I don’t make it out of the sanctuary before I realize there was someone or something I forgot to mention in my prayers! Often I cannot even recall whether I simply said, “Thank you, Lord”.
To be perfectly honest, there are some days when I cannot bring myself to my knees at the prayer rail because the need is so great out there that I don’t even know where to begin – or where to end. I tell myself that my own “net” is only so big and will only do so much and that I shouldn’t wear myself out worrying about such things, but that’s not so easy to walk away from – or into! It occurs to me, however, that this is probably the thrust of the story in Luke’s gospel. It seems to be as simple as this: the nets came back empty before because the disciples did it all on their own based on their OWN experiences, their OWN knowledge, for their OWN gain. They were relying on their OWN resources to get the job done, not realizing that the REAL job was just ahead.
Wesley saw the Bible as the “only” model, the “only” standard of what we can know of “pure religion”, but it also seems a pretty broad stroke when the Bible is as big as it is. It covers a lot of ground, a great expanse of human history, and there are a lot of different English translations. How can we possibly narrow it down to what constitutes “pure religion” and what our proper focus should be? Grace? Of course. Generosity? Certainly. Charity? Absolutely. But without proper spiritual guidance, we are casting our individual nets into an open sea based solely on what WE like, what WE think, and what WE think we know, and what we may personally gain from it. We hope for the best, of course, but then blame the weather or any number of other factors – including one another – when the net result is not what we expected or hoped for.
In the middle of all this, however, this “scatter-shot” affect of religious endeavor, we finally reach that point of spiritual fatigue because we finally realize that no matter how much we do or how much we give, it will never be enough. We give to one, and find that there are three more waiting in the wings. As happens too often, when we get tired we … just … quit. We run out of juice, we run out of money, and we even run out of prayer.
The focus of the effort to restore Methodism is to restore holiness. Not “social” holiness, as in finding our place in society or within this secular culture, important as that is in its own context. But I think we have fallen away from what should be our focus as we gather. This is not a “meetin’ house”, and it is not a social gathering. It is a place of worship, and our focus must necessarily be on adoration of Him, worshipping Him, giving thanks to Him, praying to Him not for special favors but simply trying to find the words to express what is on our hearts –absent the “wish list”, of course.
We focus on Him and Him alone so that we know exactly where – and when - we are to cast our one “net” as the Body of Christ we are called to be, not the several “nets” working independently to see who can catch the most, who might have been “more” right. But we must also be mindful of the possibility that we may also be called to draw in our “nets” from efforts that produce nothing, to stop wasting our resources, our time, and our energies on that which may make us feel good about ourselves but will do nothing for the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no place in the Body of Christ for “feel good” religion, and there certainly is no place in the Kingdom of Heaven for “sacred cows”.
Let us search for and find the “pure religion” we desperately need in our worship of the Lord. Let worship be about “pure worship” and let the “purity of our intentions” be revealed to us as His will … and not our own.
Amen.
A couple of thoughts from John Wesley:
• In the year 1725, being in the twenty-third year of my age, I met with Bishop Taylor's Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and Dying. In reading several parts of this book, I was exceedingly affected; that part in particular which relates to purity of intention. Instantly I resolved to dedicate all my life to God, all my thoughts, and words, and actions; being thoroughly convinced, there was no medium; but that every part of my life (not some only) must either be a sacrifice to God, or myself, that is, in effect, to the devil. Can any serious person doubt of this, or find a medium between serving God and serving the devil?
• In the year 1729, I began not only to read, but to study, the Bible, as the one, the only standard of truth, and the only model of pure religion. Hence I saw, in a clearer and clearer light, the indispensable necessity of having "the mind which was in Christ," and of "walking as Christ also walked;" even of having, not some part only, but all the mind which was in him; and of walking as he walked, not only in many or in most respects, but in all things. And this was the light, wherein at this time I generally considered religion, as an uniform following of Christ, an entire inward and outward conformity to our Master.
Even though the year has only just begun, it’s already been a busy one. There have been those heart-wrenching appeals from UMCOR and other agencies for Haiti’s earthquake recovery efforts and UMCOR’s continued work in Indonesia, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world; there was the “Catch the Vision” appeal and the Wesley Foundation, the Hannah Medical Baby Bottle Campaign, the regular tithes and offerings, and the other grateful recipients of your benevolence and generosity. When the dust finally began to settle, I found myself agreeing almost mindlessly to the MDA lock-up thing for “Jerry’s kids”, and now we are handing out the Lenten jars to prepare for our annual gift to mission. And let’s not forget Emily’s need for 500lbs of sugar for the homeless shelter!
Before I entered the preaching ministry, I was lay leader at another church. I recall a time when it seemed that no matter which way I turned, someone had his or her hand out in an appeal for money. Some were fund-raisers for one thing or another, some were charitable endeavors, but all were important in their own way and in their own place. When the fund-raisers began setting up in the narthex and virtually blocked the door into the sanctuary, however, I began to make some noise because what I believed I was witnessing was the creation of an inhospitable worship environment.
Visitors who were not familiar with the goings-on at our little church felt like they had to pay “admission” to attend worship! What is worse is that these efforts “weeded out” those who just did not have the money to spare, or they were made to feel as though what they had given was “not enough”. It was not that they did not want to give; it simply was that they didn’t have any more to give – so they stopped coming. Often I didn’t even want to be there. It made me think of Jesus’ efforts to cleanse the Temple and rid the place of the money-changers who sold overpriced, but arguably necessary, items for worship such as animals and “local money”. Jesus blasted them all by accusing them of turning the Holy Father’s “house of prayer” into a “den of thieves”. I don’t think we’re quite there, of course, but I see the necessity of raising the “red flag” so that we evaluate what we do and why we do it.
It is fair and honest that we should be made aware of what is happening in our communities and in our United Methodist Church, at home and abroad. Indeed, it is a way by which we take ownership through our apportionments for the work of the Church and to know what is going on and to be given an opportunity to help where we can. In the midst of “information overload”, however, is the very real danger of distractions of such an overwhelming magnitude that we forget why we gather here in the first place. I guess I’m always mindful of, and a little sensitive to, the many who have walked away and freely separated themselves from the Body of Christ because of the so-called “money grubbers”, those who stand accused of making “church” about little more than the acquisition of money to create a “feel good” religion consisting of dollars but very little sense of self, purpose, or mission.
In Luke’s gospel (5:1-11) we clearly see the power of the Lord working, but I don’t think we see clearly enough that there is far more to the story than simply a boat-load of fish, a miracle of sorts attributed to the Lord since they didn’t catch anything before. There is an analogy at work in the story that probably doesn’t get the attention it deserves. It is a prelude of things to come for the disciples … and for Christ’s Holy Church. And it has not so much to do with the fish or the nets themselves but what must take place before the first net is cast. It is a matter of not only knowing where to cast the nets … but when … and how often. And there is only One Way we are going to come by that knowledge. Anything outside of this is a guess.
As the earlier quotes from John Wesley indicated, he was also aware of the dangers of the many distractions we are continually faced with, as much within the Church as out. There is not a charity or a church mission out there that does not deserve at least our prayerful consideration, but we must also be mindful of our limitations; there is only so much we can do. Even in my morning prayer time, I get a little overwhelmed myself whenever I try to remember everyone and everything I’ve been requested to pray for. Needless to say, the list is endless! Whenever I walk away from the prayer time, I often feel like such an utter failure because there is never a time that I don’t make it out of the sanctuary before I realize there was someone or something I forgot to mention in my prayers! Often I cannot even recall whether I simply said, “Thank you, Lord”.
To be perfectly honest, there are some days when I cannot bring myself to my knees at the prayer rail because the need is so great out there that I don’t even know where to begin – or where to end. I tell myself that my own “net” is only so big and will only do so much and that I shouldn’t wear myself out worrying about such things, but that’s not so easy to walk away from – or into! It occurs to me, however, that this is probably the thrust of the story in Luke’s gospel. It seems to be as simple as this: the nets came back empty before because the disciples did it all on their own based on their OWN experiences, their OWN knowledge, for their OWN gain. They were relying on their OWN resources to get the job done, not realizing that the REAL job was just ahead.
Wesley saw the Bible as the “only” model, the “only” standard of what we can know of “pure religion”, but it also seems a pretty broad stroke when the Bible is as big as it is. It covers a lot of ground, a great expanse of human history, and there are a lot of different English translations. How can we possibly narrow it down to what constitutes “pure religion” and what our proper focus should be? Grace? Of course. Generosity? Certainly. Charity? Absolutely. But without proper spiritual guidance, we are casting our individual nets into an open sea based solely on what WE like, what WE think, and what WE think we know, and what we may personally gain from it. We hope for the best, of course, but then blame the weather or any number of other factors – including one another – when the net result is not what we expected or hoped for.
In the middle of all this, however, this “scatter-shot” affect of religious endeavor, we finally reach that point of spiritual fatigue because we finally realize that no matter how much we do or how much we give, it will never be enough. We give to one, and find that there are three more waiting in the wings. As happens too often, when we get tired we … just … quit. We run out of juice, we run out of money, and we even run out of prayer.
The focus of the effort to restore Methodism is to restore holiness. Not “social” holiness, as in finding our place in society or within this secular culture, important as that is in its own context. But I think we have fallen away from what should be our focus as we gather. This is not a “meetin’ house”, and it is not a social gathering. It is a place of worship, and our focus must necessarily be on adoration of Him, worshipping Him, giving thanks to Him, praying to Him not for special favors but simply trying to find the words to express what is on our hearts –absent the “wish list”, of course.
We focus on Him and Him alone so that we know exactly where – and when - we are to cast our one “net” as the Body of Christ we are called to be, not the several “nets” working independently to see who can catch the most, who might have been “more” right. But we must also be mindful of the possibility that we may also be called to draw in our “nets” from efforts that produce nothing, to stop wasting our resources, our time, and our energies on that which may make us feel good about ourselves but will do nothing for the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no place in the Body of Christ for “feel good” religion, and there certainly is no place in the Kingdom of Heaven for “sacred cows”.
Let us search for and find the “pure religion” we desperately need in our worship of the Lord. Let worship be about “pure worship” and let the “purity of our intentions” be revealed to us as His will … and not our own.
Amen.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
The Congress, at the behest of the president, is beginning debate to consider a repeal of the 1993 “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals serving in the US armed forces. Prior to the 1993 law, those accused of homosexual conduct could be separated from the armed forces for that alone. In a nutshell, no gays allowed.
Enter the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” law. Under the current law homosexuals can serve, but they are required to keep their orientation to themselves; recruiters and commanders are prohibited from asking. On its surface, it sounds like the current policy is at least adequate for the time being and for probably more reasons than any can list. There are many questions, however, and one can only suppose the Congress and Pentagon will hash these out as the debate progresses.
Whether the president wishes to acknowledge this fact or not, however, we are a nation at war. Our military members are stretched thin with more than enough on their plates. Now may not be the best time to distract them with social policy debates, particularly debates that attempt to re-engineer that very unique culture that is the US armed forces. We are into an election year; the last thing we need is political grand-standing on so important a subject as this in a time of war; election-year grandstanding needs no more ammo.
Our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and our mothers who proudly wear the uniform of the United States of America are warriors. They are trained, geared, and oriented toward battle. Theirs is a culture foreign to the typical civilian, and what they are trained to do is virtually unthinkable in many respects.
It must also be noted that the enemy we currently face is one like no other. We are not at war with nations; there is no cohesive entity with which treaties may be negotiated. The enemy we face is cold, calculating, and blood-thirsty. They are, for all intents and purposes, entirely uncivilized. They are barbarians, murderers, and thieves. They willingly, if eagerly, cut the throats of their prisoners, military or civilian, with jagged swords and record the screams and images as their innocent victims beg and plead for their lives to be spared. Some may suggest they do it for kicks and giggles, but it is more likely they calculate such acts to invoke raw terror into the hearts of potential enemies and future targets, primarily civilian targets. They have no honor, they know no shame, and they lack any sense of human compassion or decency on any level. The brave men and women of our armed forces must be not only trained but conditioned to face this enemy.
The mindset of a warrior trained to face this enemy is a focused one … and a harsh one. These are not “killers” we ask to defend us; they are warriors. There is a distinctive difference, of course, but these warriors must always be mindful that theirs is not a social culture or even a sub-culture, and the military does not exist so that folks who run out of other career options have somewhere to go, but exists only because a strong national defense is a fundamental key to the stability of our nation. Like a movie character military commander once stated so aptly, “We are here to defend democracy; not practice it.”
It stands to reason, then, that what is being discussed and proposed for the military community and culture may be entirely out of place, at least during this critical time. Military commanders have a full mission plate. And while this may sound somewhat sub-human, they cannot be overly concerned with individual feelings, “feel good” social justice, or even individual human rights. Members of the armed forces exist for one reason: to prepare for, and engage in if necessary, armed conflict. Social distractions and individual rights are not conducive to such an environment for this reason alone: we care more that they come home alive, having done their jobs well.
In the military culture, it must also be considered that one is not “free to be me” because such a mindset implies and actually promotes individualism. The military functions in terms of “units”, not persons. So while the military commander should not be so eager to sacrifice an entire unit toward a foolish endeavor, what they do on a daily basis is always dangerous because the mission itself must necessarily be the primary focus. Considering a military venture in terms of individual lives that might be lost would cause most rational, reasonable civilians to withdraw; the military and its commanders cannot. This entire debate can be reduced to its most common denominator, in terms of human relationships and the potential risks they pose in the military environment.
For instance, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, “fraternization” is prohibited. Simply stated, those in authority must not become chummy with those subordinates who serve or might serve under their authority. In my own time in the Marine Corps, I witnessed ineffective NCO’s who were buddies with some pretty bad actors. When it came time for the sergeants to act like sergeants, they found themselves bound by friendship rather than by duty. Those of us outside that special circle found ourselves bearing the brunt of whatever consequences may have been because the sergeants expended more energy trying to preserve the friendship rather than exercise the authority entrusted to them.
You wanna talk about poor morale? Trying spending extra time on guard duty or in the chow hall scrubbing pots and pans because “Sergeant Buddy-Chum” saved his pal from taking his turn. It happens, and it has likely been happening for far too long, and it does cause problems within the social and authoritarian structure of that unit. The problem is not corrected until authority is recovered. Will a repeal of DADT further complicate such disciplinary and morale problems because Sergeant So-And-So now has the hots for Private This-and-That?
A repeal of the current policy opens doors that few have yet to seriously consider. For all practical purposes, an individual ceases to be an individual once he or she steps off the bus at the recruit training center. It does not even matter whether one is married. Under this nation’s current circumstances, one is all but “owned”; lock, stock, and barrel by the US government for one purpose: maintaining a strong national defense and facing a cold-blooded enemy. Neither personal feelings nor social standing have a place in the readiness of a unit trained, equipped, and geared to fight. It is not pretty nor can it be made more attractive. It is bloody, it is dangerous, and lives will be lost. Let’s leave this fight for perhaps another day so that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines can deal with the task at hand.
Enter the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” law. Under the current law homosexuals can serve, but they are required to keep their orientation to themselves; recruiters and commanders are prohibited from asking. On its surface, it sounds like the current policy is at least adequate for the time being and for probably more reasons than any can list. There are many questions, however, and one can only suppose the Congress and Pentagon will hash these out as the debate progresses.
Whether the president wishes to acknowledge this fact or not, however, we are a nation at war. Our military members are stretched thin with more than enough on their plates. Now may not be the best time to distract them with social policy debates, particularly debates that attempt to re-engineer that very unique culture that is the US armed forces. We are into an election year; the last thing we need is political grand-standing on so important a subject as this in a time of war; election-year grandstanding needs no more ammo.
Our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and our mothers who proudly wear the uniform of the United States of America are warriors. They are trained, geared, and oriented toward battle. Theirs is a culture foreign to the typical civilian, and what they are trained to do is virtually unthinkable in many respects.
It must also be noted that the enemy we currently face is one like no other. We are not at war with nations; there is no cohesive entity with which treaties may be negotiated. The enemy we face is cold, calculating, and blood-thirsty. They are, for all intents and purposes, entirely uncivilized. They are barbarians, murderers, and thieves. They willingly, if eagerly, cut the throats of their prisoners, military or civilian, with jagged swords and record the screams and images as their innocent victims beg and plead for their lives to be spared. Some may suggest they do it for kicks and giggles, but it is more likely they calculate such acts to invoke raw terror into the hearts of potential enemies and future targets, primarily civilian targets. They have no honor, they know no shame, and they lack any sense of human compassion or decency on any level. The brave men and women of our armed forces must be not only trained but conditioned to face this enemy.
The mindset of a warrior trained to face this enemy is a focused one … and a harsh one. These are not “killers” we ask to defend us; they are warriors. There is a distinctive difference, of course, but these warriors must always be mindful that theirs is not a social culture or even a sub-culture, and the military does not exist so that folks who run out of other career options have somewhere to go, but exists only because a strong national defense is a fundamental key to the stability of our nation. Like a movie character military commander once stated so aptly, “We are here to defend democracy; not practice it.”
It stands to reason, then, that what is being discussed and proposed for the military community and culture may be entirely out of place, at least during this critical time. Military commanders have a full mission plate. And while this may sound somewhat sub-human, they cannot be overly concerned with individual feelings, “feel good” social justice, or even individual human rights. Members of the armed forces exist for one reason: to prepare for, and engage in if necessary, armed conflict. Social distractions and individual rights are not conducive to such an environment for this reason alone: we care more that they come home alive, having done their jobs well.
In the military culture, it must also be considered that one is not “free to be me” because such a mindset implies and actually promotes individualism. The military functions in terms of “units”, not persons. So while the military commander should not be so eager to sacrifice an entire unit toward a foolish endeavor, what they do on a daily basis is always dangerous because the mission itself must necessarily be the primary focus. Considering a military venture in terms of individual lives that might be lost would cause most rational, reasonable civilians to withdraw; the military and its commanders cannot. This entire debate can be reduced to its most common denominator, in terms of human relationships and the potential risks they pose in the military environment.
For instance, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, “fraternization” is prohibited. Simply stated, those in authority must not become chummy with those subordinates who serve or might serve under their authority. In my own time in the Marine Corps, I witnessed ineffective NCO’s who were buddies with some pretty bad actors. When it came time for the sergeants to act like sergeants, they found themselves bound by friendship rather than by duty. Those of us outside that special circle found ourselves bearing the brunt of whatever consequences may have been because the sergeants expended more energy trying to preserve the friendship rather than exercise the authority entrusted to them.
You wanna talk about poor morale? Trying spending extra time on guard duty or in the chow hall scrubbing pots and pans because “Sergeant Buddy-Chum” saved his pal from taking his turn. It happens, and it has likely been happening for far too long, and it does cause problems within the social and authoritarian structure of that unit. The problem is not corrected until authority is recovered. Will a repeal of DADT further complicate such disciplinary and morale problems because Sergeant So-And-So now has the hots for Private This-and-That?
A repeal of the current policy opens doors that few have yet to seriously consider. For all practical purposes, an individual ceases to be an individual once he or she steps off the bus at the recruit training center. It does not even matter whether one is married. Under this nation’s current circumstances, one is all but “owned”; lock, stock, and barrel by the US government for one purpose: maintaining a strong national defense and facing a cold-blooded enemy. Neither personal feelings nor social standing have a place in the readiness of a unit trained, equipped, and geared to fight. It is not pretty nor can it be made more attractive. It is bloody, it is dangerous, and lives will be lost. Let’s leave this fight for perhaps another day so that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines can deal with the task at hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)