Blood of the Innocents

In December 1997 in Paducah KY, a young student walked into his school with a problem. As a result of his state of mind, 3 innocent persons were killed and 5 wounded.

Almost a year later near Jonesboro, two young boys set off the fire alarm at their school and opened fire when everyone began filing out of the school; 5 were killed and another 11 wounded.

Though these two incidents were tragic enough, the nation was rudely awakened when in April 1999 two boys walked into Columbine High School in Colorado and opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 24 others before finally taking their own lives. Since May 1927 when 45 children were killed and another 58 wounded in Bath Township MI, this was the worst disaster of its kind. This kind of attack provoked all kinds of questions about parental authority and responsibility, school responsibility, our culture, our society, gun control, and a host of other issues. Now, it seemed, the nation was ready to get serious.

Just this past Friday a 9th grader entered into a school in Cazenovia WI and shot the school’s principal. Though there were no others killed or wounded, the principal died later as a result of the inflicted wounds.

Each of these incidents are in themselves tragic, but I do remember that the Jonesboro shooting hit a little close to home probably for all of us because the shooters were so young and this took place literally a little too close to home. The most tragic and common denominator in each of these shootings, with the exception of the 1927 MI shooting, is that it was children who committed these terrible crimes.

It might be notable to some social scientists as to why these boys decided to take such drastic measures but for most of the rest of us, it should only be notable that these were children who shot and killed children. Randomly.

What could possibly possess children to do such things? Why does the sanctity of life mean so precious little to these and so many other children? And since children learn best by watching, what are we as a society doing that would lead children to believe that such violence is going to solve any of their problems or that life is so cheap and expendable?

Now I know that it is the typical “bleeding heart liberal” thinking that seems to suggest that these boys are not to blame, that it was society or bad parenting or poverty or a host of other problems that many of us have also endured without deciding to end someone’s life. I think, however, there may be more to this than we can possibly imagine, and it is more likely that we can speculate from now until kingdom come and never fully know what can provoke such extreme acts.

I have a theory that keeps coming back to the front of my mind whenever I offer prayers after such tragedies that have led many to believe that I’m really reaching, but I ask only that you indulge me.

In 1973 in the name of “privacy rights”, the United State Supreme Court in the infamous Roe vs. Wade case decided that women had unrestricted rights to an abortion. Since that time there have been in excess of 40 million unborn children in this country alone who never saw the light of day. Yet unlike other social issues that were controversial in their own rights and in their own times, abortion today is likely THE hot button issue that divides us as a nation and even as a Church. It is also an issue that we are very vocal about consistently, so it is an issue that is discussed and argued publicly and often. EVERYONE knows about it. Think about this: for everyone under the age of 33, legalized abortion has been the law of the land their entire lives.

In this continuing debate, there are the pro-lifers who insist that all life, regardless of circumstances of conception, is precious, sacred, and given only by the Lord God. There are also the so-called pro-choicers who insist that each woman has the right to decide whether she will terminate her pregnancy or carry the baby to term.

I do not intend to delve too deeply into the abortion debate because this stand-alone issue is not my point. Rather, it is that even many who consider themselves pro-choice but who are also “personally opposed” to the tragedy of abortion continue to insist very publicly that this issue is at the heart of “women’s rights”.

This is wrong. It is a HUMAN rights issue, and our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a biblical truth: that we are endowed by our Creator with the “unalienable” RIGHT TO LIFE. “Unalienable” simply means that these rights are inherent to our existence and that we cannot by any means be separated or “alienated” from these rights. They are given to us by the Lord God, and man cannot take them away.

So what does this have to do with a young person’s faulty reasoning that taking an innocent life is somehow going to enhance the quality of his own life? In each of these shooting tragedies, the boys who fired the shots were ostracized by their peers. They were deemed either too weak or too weird. In KY and WI, each of the shooters felt that they were the constant targets of bullies. In AR, one of the boys had been jilted by a girl whom he had a crush on.

So it would seem that in their desperation to make things right, at least in their own minds, taking lives was the only option left. Of course it requires maturity to slow down and think things through, but then prepubescent and teenage boys have never been well known for thinking things through.

But why would these boys somehow come to believe that killing anyone for the sake of their own misery is a good idea? How did they come to place such a low value on life itself that killing not just the one person who may have done them wrong but opening fire randomly would somehow be ok even in their twisted little minds? What kind of rage is this??

Be aware that these are the killings that made the headlines. If you read the Arkansas section of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette carefully, you will find all kinds of teenagers arrested for shooting someone. It happens more often than we might like to believe.

My theory is that children are enabled to place such a low value on life by the standards and practices of the society in which they live and are raised. By not standing firm against the despicable practice of abortion and making known our belief in the God and Author of LIFE, we are teaching young children that the value of life is whatever we make of it, that we get to decide who lives and who dies according to our own needs. Terminate a pregnancy because one “chooses” to regardless of the reason, be it personal, financial, emotional, or medical? Then why can’t these young children believe that they, too, can take such decisions upon themselves? Who are we to set such ambiguous terms in that “this” life is ok, but “that” life is not? And how are children supposed to be able to tell the difference when we don’t even know ourselves?

But as I warned one lady some time back, be careful about suggesting that a MOTHER can decide whether her BABY lives or dies. Think about the nature of that statement and what such a careless proclamation makes about the sacred and societal value of life. There is the very shallow argument that it is “my” body and “my” choice, so it may be with a youngster who decides that perhaps since his own life has no significant value according to societal standards or that he has somehow suffered at the hands of someone who is making his own life miserable, life itself then has no significant value.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are a very angry nation. We are rushed, and we are under enormous pressure to maintain a certain standard of living. In our endless quest for that ambitious “Great American Dream”, we are forgetting that there are some fundamentals that require our attention. One of these fundamentals demands that we teach our children well and responsibly.

It seems, though, that in our never-ending quest for more, we also fail to acknowledge our weaknesses – and they are many! But how do we address our weaknesses which we inevitably hand off to our children? What will be required of us? More importantly, how committed are we to address these issues and repent from our path to self-destruction?

Tomorrow is Yom Kippur, the Jewish “day of atonement”. In the tradition of Judaism it is the day in which fasting and prayer are central to the commemoration. It is the day in which the Lord promises, according to tradition, to come near to hear the prayers of the faithful. In the faith of the Hebrews, it is the day in which one is devoted to making a commitment to the Lord. So what sort of commitment would He be looking for from us?

To “atone” is to require that we make amends for our past failures. If we have wronged someone, atonement would require that we make a deliberate and intentional move to make it right.

To “repent” is to commit to turning away from the paths that led us to commit these sins of our past, those paths that led us away from the Lord, the paths we know causes pain on any level, those paths that lead us AWAY from YHWH. And as mature and responsible adults, we should reasonably know when we are doing harm, either directly or indirectly.

The commitments we make now determine the path we will choose to travel from now until our time on this earth comes to an end but more importantly, it will help to determine the path on which our children will choose to travel for themselves, their journey of faith, and the journey of generations to come.

It is our duty. It is our privilege. It is our legacy. It is, indeed, our life.

Groveling and Diplomacy

Pope Benedict has not, to my knowledge, issued an outright apology for remarks he made in an academic setting in a speech that so enraged the Muslim world (how can he apologize for what someone else said?) but instead, "regrets" the strong reactions. In meetings with Islamic diplomats recently, the pope encouraged Muslims to actually READ the entire text and then judge for themselves whether he was intentionally or recklessly disparaging Islam. For the time being, the pontiff is satisfied with continuing to reconcile and mend fences.

I am not an "in your face" theologian nor am I a confrontational politician. I believe that in order to be heard, one must be willing to hear. Am I perfect? Hardly. But I can also reach a point when, in the order of an apology, I will finally draw a line. I will not grovel and beg. If I am moved to apologize (and I often am because of my big mouth), my apology is sincere. Is it then my problem if others cannot, or will not, accept my apology?

I don't think it is any matter of pride in which I find myself finally fed up with those who won't listen to reason. It is easy for me to convince myself that, unless my words or act is a complete violation of reason and respect for others, if they will not accept my apology the first time it is very likely they never will.

So why is Benedict allowing himself to be continually beat over the head especially by those who seem intent on trying to convince the world that they have a legitimate beef and that they are being mistreated? Why is no one taking the pope's invitation to actually read the entire text of the "speech" seriously enough to actually read it? Prominent Muslims the world over act offended at the suggestion that Islam is not a violent religion, yet they refuse to take any stand against the violence this speech is purported to have provoked? How, then, can they expect to be taken seriously when they believe that Islam has something to offer to the world beyond bloodshed?

The pope cannot be held responsible for what someone said 600 years ago anymore than I can be held responsible for slavery in the United States in the early days of this republic. Why, then, must he or I apologize for something over which we had no control? I can speak of facts regarding slavery but if I do not specifically mention that I believe the practice to have been abhorent, does this then make me a proponent of that which I find personally and socially repugnant?

The pope has issued his regrets and I have no reason to believe that he is not sincere. Why can we not move along in favor of something else?

Tombstone and the War on Terror

One of my favorite movies is “Tombstone” with Kurt Russell playing the part of the legendary Wyatt Earp. Wyatt and his brothers finally come together in search of a normal life in Tombstone, AZ where they can finally live as a family.

Tombstone being born during the rush on silver, there was a law enforcement presence but the town itself was pretty much overrun by the lawless gang known as “the Cowboys”. They carried weapons openly and killed and stole indiscriminately. It seemed they were unstoppable.

Soon there was confrontation between the Earp brothers and the Cowboys when Virgil Earp accepted the job as town marshal after his predecessor had been murdered by one of the Cowboys. Though the Earps did not want to become involved again in law enforcement (they were retired lawmen), Virgil nevertheless felt compelled to take his place out of a sense of both guilt and obligation knowing the town was being overrun by lawlessness without a law enforcement presence. He had determined that if he was going to continue living in Tombstone, there would have to be law and order.

Long story short, youngest Earp Morgan was shot in the back by one of the Cowboys and Virgil was seriously wounded so much so that he could not continue as the town’s marshal, so they decided to leave town. Or so the Cowboys thought.

The rest of the movie is focused on Wyatt Earp and Doc Holloday with some others chasing the Cowboys down and putting them out of business. During one particular gun fight, Wyatt pulled a rather miraculous stunt in which he unnecessarily exposed himself but came out without a scratch. After the battle, Doc was talking to another man about Wyatt’s need for vengeance to which Doc replied, “Make no mistake. It’s not revenge he’s after. It’s a reckoning.”

The word “reckon” has several different meanings and applications but for the purpose of its context in “Tombstone” and Wyatt Earp’s quest against the Cowboys, it was time for the Cowboys to be judged and to “settle accounts” between good and evil. Evil had reigned for too long.

We know, or should reasonably know, that vengeance settles no score. In fact, for the faithful the act of vengeance is prohibited according to the Word of the Lord because man can never truly judge appropriately against acts perpetrated against himself as an individual. The act of judgment rightly belongs to law and the community for the sake of security and peace not for individuals but for community.

The war on terror is not completely unlike the situation which was portrayed in the movie. There are several renegade bands of men around the world who have declared themselves to be Allah’s messengers bent on “jihad”, and they are ruling their own worlds not according to the true teachings of the Koran but according to either what they are being taught or what they want to believe as it suits them and if the community does not acquiesce accordingly, the community is judged and murdered. The only sense of order which exists in this world is the order by which men rule by the edge of the sword.

The Cowboys’ terrorist grip on Tombstone was finally vanquished not because Wyatt Earp negotiated with them or considered their upbringing or their level of education or poverty, and Wyatt Earp did not consider himself to be at fault for the murderous rampages of this pack of wild dogs. Instead, the Cowboys were systematically destroyed by duly appointed law enforcement.

In the movie, Doc and Wyatt were talking about Wyatt’s upcoming duel with Johnny Ringo, the leader of the Cowboys. Wyatt asked what makes a man like Ringo act the way he does and Doc replied, “A man like Ringo has a big empty hole that can never be filled. He can never kill enough or steal enough or cause enough pain to fill it.” All a man like Johnny Ringo wants, says Doc, is revenge for just being born.

Is that all there truly is? Are these terrorists so filled with hate because they hate themselves and their own lives and resent being born at all? Is there such a thing as a level of hatred so profound that the sanctity of life is no longer worthy of consideration? If this is true to any degree, it would seem then that this war is not winnable at all except when civilized nations band together and finally realize that these crazies will not be dealt with except by force, and they cannot be contained within any border as evidenced by 9/11. They must, however, be dealt with and at least controlled.

The world community demands a reckoning; justice itself demands that accounts be settled. These murderers cannot be allowed to perpetrate their goals at the expense of international order and security. Liberty demands that mankind be left to his own devices and his own unalienable rights to live according to his calling without violating the unalienable rights of others. These outlaws (please do not call them practitioners of Islam. They do not worship Allah; they worship death) are looking for trouble, not a deal.

What are we really giving Him?

Leviticus 27:28-34
Matthew 23:23
Mark 12:41-44

One of the most difficult topics for pastors to discuss or to preach about is tithing. Too many pastors are acutely aware that if the subject matter is not handled delicately, many persons will have guilt heaped upon guilt in recognizing that they truly do not give what they should. The guilt heaped upon guilt is coming to this realization while up to the neck in debt. The truth of the worshipful nature of tithing comes stabbing into the heart, and the “guilty” person cannot see a way out because of the blindness of debt.

When my wife and I were just starting out together, we attended a large church in which there was the senior pastor and a younger associate. It happened that the younger associate was usually the celebrant of the Mass, but nearly monthly (it seemed) the senior pastor would show up only to reprimand the congregation about their lack of giving. When money was tight for my wife and me, we felt about “this big” when we walked out of the church. It may have been even more so for my wife whose father was a very intentional and dedicated giver. So we walked out of church many Sundays with my wife feeling pretty badly and me just plain angry.

Looking back on those rebukes from the senior pastor, I can remember very little Scripture reference to why what we gave mattered beyond paying the light bills at the church. In fact, at least for what little I knew, the congregation had very little to say about how the money was spent. It all belonged to the diocese. In this context, then, it almost seemed as though the bishop told our pastor that his church was not living up to expectations, so he had better kick a few cans!

I doubt that’s true, but who knows? We as a Church don’t share a common understanding of what tithing actually means beyond the legal definition. For instance there are some who will debate about whether one should give 10% of the gross or 10% of the net, reasoning that it would not be fair to pay a percentage of an income we will, for all practical purposes, never see.

Talk about missing the mark! These types of discussions are not even worthy of theological or doctrinal consideration.

The last thing folks want to talk about in church is money. It is a depressing topic, and it is almost as divisive as any “hot button” social issue because attitudes about money vary in a congregation of any size. One pastor seemed to believe that the differences in financial perspective had more generational tones and this may be true to a degree, but I am more inclined to suggest that our attitudes about money have everything to do with how we were raised, how carefully our parents taught us about financial management and giving, and our own experiences. Folks from my own grandmother’s generation, for instance, survived the Great Depression and WWII. They knew what it was like to be unsure of “tomorrow”, so they had a tendency to horde.

This is not to condemn an entire generation at all because, truth be told, it might be better said that we learned more not about money but about FAITH and COMMUNITY, things that are truly important, during those hard times. Either way, the attitudes about money from similar experiences are acquired honestly and not necessarily by any sense of greed.

We are certainly called to be responsible with what we are given and we must always be mindful that EVERYTHING we have is the Lord God’s gift to us. And as it is said so often and so well, “what we do with what we have is our gift to Him.” A prevailing attitude about money, however, might underscore an understanding of our possessions, including cash, in whether we are either BLESSED with it or ENTRUSTED with it. There is a huge difference between the two, and our understanding of those differences will have everything to do with how we respond with what we have AND what we believe about the type of response our giving may evoke.

Our response, then, has everything to do with what we understand about the whole purpose of tithing to begin with. Are we doing nothing more than simply pooling our money so that we can pay the utilities and insurance on the building? And if we are hording the money for a “rainy day”, how hard does it have to rain before we stick a crowbar in the wallet and let go of some of it?

Our United Methodist system of apportionments is a very good teaching mechanism for what we are called to do with our money. Though I am aware that there are some items that many disagree with, especially with those leaders who are a little more politically outspoken than they ought to be, but there are many items which work toward the mission and ministry of the WORLD-WIDE church. And that is really who we are and what we do, isn’t it?

The Leviticus statement, “A tithe of everything … belongs to the Lord” is a teaching from the Torah which addresses a reality about what we should know and what we should do. The problem with this statement is that it LEGALLY compels tithing, and there are too many scriptural references that deal with the Lord’s attitude toward those who give to Him only because they HAVE to.

Matthew’s reference deals with this matter further. Jesus is blasting away at the Pharisees – the TEACHERS of the Law which seems to compel tithing – about how they LEGALLY give their tithe but fail in other matters such as “justice, mercy, and faithfulness”, but He also does not let them off the hook by suggesting that faithfulness is a matter of making a choice between one or the other.

Our giving should be personified by Jesus’ lesson to His followers from Mark. It is not enough to give only from our abundance, our wealth, what we have to “spare” at the time. Rather, our giving must come with an attachment but no strings. Giving “till it hurts” is a testimony not only of our faithfulness to biblical teachings but also speaks to our level of trust. Are we so afraid of tomorrow that we would withhold an extra dollar from the Lord expecting – or at least hoping - that He will understand? The widow gave her ALL and yet her gift had very little to do with money.

Read this section of Mark again while remembering that widows in that society, in that culture, did not typically own property and had little – if any – means. Hear the poor widow say, while dropping “all she had” into the temple treasury, “Lord, I need YOU more than I need this, and I do truly trust You with my life.”

“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.”

So What of Knowledge?

Isaiah 50:4-9a
Mark 8:27-38

What do we mean when we say we are possessed of knowledge? When we tell someone that we “know” of something to be true, what are we really saying? To paraphrase James, “You believe there is a God; so what? So do demons.”

So we can honestly – or can we? – say that there is a God; so what? What do we mean? We can see a rickety old rope bridge with some pretty questionable planks crossing over a deep canyon gorge and we can honestly say with absolute certainty that there is a bridge that crosses over the gorge, but are we prepared to bet with our lives that the bridge will do what it is supposed to do? That the bridge has a purpose and is currently serving that purpose?

We have knowledge of the bridge, and others who see it can attest to the fact that there is indeed a bridge. This knowledge cannot be disputed. What IS in dispute is whether or not that bridge is going to support our weight. That knowledge is lacking. So what will it take to make a determination about whether there is a usable, serviceable bridge that crosses over that gorge? The answer is obvious: someone is going to have to step out onto that bridge to find out. The only way the true value of that bridge will be determined is by interacting with the bridge, engaging the bridge, studying the bridge, and then actually stepping onto the bridge.

So to have knowledge of this bridge's existence serves no useful purpose because if the bridge is never going to be tried and tested, what good is it? It’s just there. It may have a rustic charm as a testimony to a pioneer spirit of days long gone but if no one is willing to actually use it, it may as well be cut down and put away forever. Right?

It is not enough for us to simply acknowledge the Lord as an “existent” God. In fact, while I know many make general reference to the term “God” as meaning the Holy Father, I sometimes wonder if the word “God”, like the words “love”, “truth”, and “justice” have any real value, any real meaning toward who we are and to Whom we belong. If we cannot comfortably refer to Him as our Lord in the presence of others who may be non-believers, what sort of a statement are we making about our Creator? About our faith? About our willingness to give that old bridge a try?

In Mark there is more to this story about Jesus and the people’s perception of Him than meets the eye and I think there is far more to what is being offered than a simple “pop quiz” about what the disciples may think they know about Jesus.


Actually, in order to be able to get more out of this passage, it is necessary to back up to verse 14 where it is written that “the disciples had forgotten to bring bread except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. Jesus said, ‘Be careful. Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”

Jesus is obviously not talking about the kind of yeast that makes bread rise. Instead when He makes reference to the Pharisees and to Herod in relation to yeast, He is warning His disciples about taking too much worldly - if useless - knowledge for granted. We can see for ourselves that there is constant conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees about matters pertaining to the Mosaic Law; spiritual vs. man-made interpretation. Now Jesus is warning His followers to be aware of the “yeast” of the Pharisees, the teachers of that Law.

But just when the disciples think they have figured out that Jesus is talking about the left over physical bread they left behind, they get a pretty sharp rebuke from Him. “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

Clearly Jesus’ followers have no clue what Jesus is talking about. Do you ever get the feeling that this is as true today as it was then? Do you ever get the feeling that maybe it is that the more we think we know about theology and doctrine that we know even less now than the disciples did then because of our dependence on man-made doctrine that has gone through centuries of metamorphoses? Somehow, though, the excess bread that was left over from the feeding of the thousands has everything to do with what Jesus is talking about, and He is getting pretty exasperated with His followers maybe just as much today as then.

Then we come to the “pop quiz”.

“Who do people say that I am?”

“What about you? Who do YOU say that I am?”

Peter’s answer is one we are very familiar with. He gives the correct answer for the moment but when Jesus begins to teach His followers about His impending Passion, Peter gets it wrong all over again and Jesus even calls Peter “Satan”! “Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke Him. Then Jesus said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

So where did Peter go wrong? What is it that Peter has missed? He has confessed Jesus as the Christ. And in Matthew’s account in chapter 16, Jesus replies to this confession: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father.” Matthew 16:17

Then recall that Jesus goes further in the much disputed statement about changing Simon’s name to “Peter” and referring to the “rock of faith” upon which the Church is to be built. This part is lacking in Mark’s account, but the rebuke that comes is present in both texts. Peter does not care for this knowledge that Jesus is predicting His own death - it does not give Peter his own sense of comfort - but it would be unfair to fault Peter for his remarks to Jesus about “allowing” Himself to be persecuted in such a way. I think we would each be guilty of asking Jesus to take whatever precautions necessary to avoid this impending confrontation.

Even today there are questions asked about why it had become necessary for such a cruel death. When we enter into a relationship with the Lord through the life of Jesus, we grow fond of this Man who did nothing but call the faithful to repentance and remind mankind that there is indeed a God and that He loves us. So to turn this very gentle Man over to hateful, vindictive men whose way of life and teachings that do nothing but repress a people makes no sense. “Never, Lord! This shall never happen to You!”

Peter is obviously lacking knowledge about the intent of the Lord God through the ministry of Christ, but I think we still do today. When the law clearly demands animals without blemish – perfect in every way – for the atonement of sin, suddenly a Man is about to be offered as the “perfect” and “FINAL” sacrifice for our sins. Even now some 2000 years later, it still does not make sense to us.

I think, then, that it will never make sense to us as long as “God” is nothing more than a general reference to a generic “higher power”, that until “God” becomes “Lord” to us we will never get it. And I am deliberately and exclusively speaking to the faithful because we are here and we claim to “believe”, but do we possess genuine KNOWLEDGE that He is Lord and God of all creation including our lives? And do we have KNOWLEDGE that He has established a Law by and through which His faithful must distinguish themselves from the rest of the world?

The distinction is made much like with the old rickety bridge. We KNOW there is a bridge; we BELIEVE there is a bridge. But do we TRUST the bridge?

Yet Another Anniversary

September 14 marks the first anniversary of this blog. This is my first post.

I've been trying to think of something earth-shattering that happened during the past year, but I cannot think of anything that completely overwhelms me. In last night's American Government class, we discussed events that stand out in our lifetimes, events that we can not only recall but those events during which we can remember where we were when they took place. I remember where I was when the shuttle Challenger blew up, I remember the attempted assasinations of President Reagan and Pope John Paul II and, of course, 9/11. I even have a vague recollection of President Kennedy's funeral on TV when I was just a child.

Yet after all these events, one thing is clear whether we consider such things to be "history-altering": life goes on. So allow another year to pass and allow the children to grow up and watch old friends pass and new friends enter and, above all else, say your prayers. The Lord has not forgotten us; let us not forget him.

Peace.

What to do?

I am a part-time local pastor and certified candidate for ordained ministry and have been serving small, rural congregations since '99. Most of these churches I've been privileged to serve are out in the boonies, not close to anything, and not sitting on any beaten path. They are, for the most part, remnants of communities that once were though the people who continue to serve and worship in these churches have had a tremendous impact on my life and my faith. These have been experiences I would not trade for anything.

The problem that is beginning to manifest itself is my wife and our youngest daughter. These are two persons who have always been actively involved in the life of a church and who are both used to having lots of things going on. My youngest, unfortunately, has missed out on being in church with kids her own age, and it has been trying for her. My wife has tried to become more actively involved in these churches, but the life she is seeking is simply not there. No one is at fault; it simply is what it is.

My current charge has early worship service, so it has been pretty easy to have that time with them and then go to worship at a larger church near our home. My wife and daughter have each grown very fond of this larger church and are both excited at the ministry prospects.

As a local pastor, I am a member of the Conference. My family does not have this distinction, and it has really bothered them both that they are not "members" of an active, vibrant ministry. As a compromise of sorts, I agreed that my wife and daughter should make their membership in the larger church official and come share in worship at my little church from time to time. Up until tonight, that matter was settled.

We attended a brief meeting with other seekers and the pastor and an associate pastor of the larger church who answered questions for those considering membership in this church. As a brief intro I offered my status, but I left out the details of my wife's and my compromise. During the course of this meeting, the associate pastor made a comment that just got me all upside down. In essence, it was implied that when I was finished "playing" church I could then come to "real" church.

The thing is I had already visited with the senior pastor some time back, so he was aware of our situation. I was not seeking membership, and he knew it. The comment that was made by the associate may not have been intended to come out like it did, but it did very much so. Now it is that I am beginning to wonder where my place really is and how serious the UMC is about part-time pastors.

I've struggled with my ministry for some time now, having a difficult time trying to go full-time and essentially being told "no" for various reasons. Now it is that I wonder if my family would just prefer that I relinquish my license and go back to being a lay speaker. I don't fault my wife for wanting more than rural churches can provide. Indeed, the rural church life is not for everyone, and not every pastor is cut out for that particular ministry. By the same token, not all pastors are gifted for a full-time pastorate at larger churches.

My greatest fear is that there may be future conflicts. For instance, how effective can I be as the pastor of a church that my family does not care to be a part of? How does the congregation look at me or my family if anyone gets the impression that my wife may think herself to be "too good" to worship in such a setting, which is NOT the case. How will my family respond if come next appointment season I am actually tapped for a full-time charge? It is a given that if such an appointment comes, it will not be the caliber of church they are now seeking to join.

What upsets me most in all this is the asinine comment made by the associate who is also a licensed pastor. Unfortunately, there have been DS's who have made similar remarks in my past. Is this how it really is with local pastors? Are we really seen by some as "play like"? Are our ministries and the churches we serve not taken seriously? Are we really only good enough for the churches that elders can't/won't serve? Is the United Methodist Church serious about the mission and ministry of the local pastor?

I would love some feedback on this from any pastor or layperson but especially from part-timers who may have faced similar circumstances.

Truth, Justice, and the "Way"

James 2:1-17 Mark 7:24-37


“All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.”
Aristotle

“It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered.”
Aristotle

“Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice.”
Aristotle


“The moral virtues, then, are produced in us neither by nature nor against nature. Nature, indeed, prepares in us the ground for their reception, but their complete formation is the product of habit.”
Aristotle


Before the time of Christ, there was already a sense of order and a system of justice which demanded that man treat man with the respect and dignity granted by his Creator, the One to whom our own Declaration of Independence refers to as “nature’s God”. This the God who conferred on humanity those certain “unalienable” rights, rights whose ownership cannot be transferred from one to another. Even during a time when slaves, fellow human beings, were OWNED, these rights conferred by “nature’s God” were still inherent to humanity even if humanity did not recognize these “unalienable” rights in blacks or women.

Justice, like love, is a word we use almost daily without giving much thought to its true meaning but is as misused and as misunderstand if not more so. Oh, we are pretty sure we know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, but there is more to this sense of right and wrong than a simple matter of determining how we are personally affected and when we think or speak of justice, it is usually within this context.

When we speak of justice, what do we really mean? How do we determine what is just? How do we decide what is “proportional” such as in the case of Israel’s recent battle with Hezbollah in Lebanon? Many cried “foul” that Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s cross-border raid in which Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped was “disproportionate” and unjust. Many felt Israel’s hand was too heavy in its response and that they went too far. True? I suppose it is a matter of perspective, or it depends entirely on where one lives.

Here in the United States, many feel that true justice is a little hard to come by considering the disproportionate number of minority and “poor” inmates in US prisons. And indeed, we can read the newspapers and see that there are some of our more affluent citizens who seem to walk away from certain convictions with nothing more than a slap on the wrist while others are doing time for committing the same crimes.

Can we say we know what justice really means when we throw food in the trash or to the dogs knowing that there are many who will go to bed hungry the very day we dispose of this edible “trash”? That at the moment when we open the top of the garbage can, somewhere a child is praying to the Lord God for something to eat?

“…and I will hear them when they cry out to Me…”

Is it just that we lavish ourselves and our children with the very best of what money can buy (or what we think we can afford) with no thought of the reality that many do without through no fault of their own? We consider that there are things we have to provide for our children. We have to feed them, clothe them, and educate them, of course. Yes to all these things, but where is the justice when we give ourselves and our children more than we could possibly need knowing that others are doing without?

What does justice really mean? The Bible speaks of a concept of justice known to us as “an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life”. In other words, if we cause harm to someone in some way, it is just that we surrender that portion of our lives at least equal to the loss suffered by our victims. Yet Jesus teaches us that if someone slaps us on one cheek, we should offer to them our other cheek. If the Lord calls us to a sense of justice, what is just about that? Would not a slap on the face deserve a slap back? Not according to the One we call “Savior”, “Teacher”, “Friend”, “Christ”, “Lord”.

The death penalty is another form of justice that requires our very serious consideration. I cannot say that I completely oppose the death penalty, yet I also cannot fully endorse it. It has little to do with statistics that show a disproportionate number of males, minorities, poor, etc sitting on death row, though this should also raise reasonable eye brows. My main concern – if not downright objection – is our perverted sense of JOY when the “switch” is thrown. It is my great concern that justice is not as “blind” as we would wish and that an innocent person could be sitting in that chair or stretched out on that gurney. It is our state of being which demands blood for blood not for the sake of justice but for the sake of vengeance or, as some might say, “closure”.

The problem with we mortals trying to define justice is our own humanity. In our compassion we may be inclined to forgive without realizing that bringing consequences to bear against adverse actions might just save a soul. By the same token, in our humanity and our weariness of rampant crime, we may be much harsher than the crime may require due in no small measure to our human emotions. See our dilemma?

So it is that as we explore justice and what it really means, our judgment must be considered in the context of the mercy that has been extended to us, as it is written in James. This is not to say that crime does not deserve punishment, but the punishment must fit the crime – without passion or prejudice. We must never allow our human emotions to so overwhelm us that we are blinded by fear, rage, hatred, or a hunger for vengeance.

It is good for us that we live in a nation of laws. An ordering of society and what man can or cannot do was established long before the US ever came into being. Within this order was a sense of justice by which man was taught how to act toward others, even (if not especially) “foreigners”. It was the model blue print that has been used for centuries all around the world.

But there are certain elements within this just law by which we work hard to figure out how the law best benefits us as individuals rather than as a nation. And if we feel threatened or fearful, we take it upon ourselves to decide that these laws have been rendered useless and only tie our hands to prevent us from deciding what is just and what is not.

The admonishment that comes to us from James is entirely about justice, equal treatment, and faith. It is JUST that we treat everyone the same regardless of how they dress or what side of the tracks they come from. It is JUST that if we are aware of hunger that we move to address that need. It is JUST that our faith be made manifest in our actions.

But consider this. We serve a God whose sense of justice is tilted in our favor. Why? It is written that the wages of sin is death. It is also written that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…

How just is it that we do not get what we truly deserve? How just can it be that the sentence our sin justly deserves has been taken upon Another?

And yet by the very grace of a Holy God, we are spared that sentence. When we consider justice, this must be our rationale even if it does not make sense to the world. We cannot degrade our humanity and our sense of Christ if we demand the blood of others without considering that it is our blood that should have been shed were it not for the Son of God.

There is a New Covenant which calls each of us to account. Our trial will truly be a trial of justice by which we will be asked how much mercy we should be granted. What we are granted will be the same measure by which we offered it ourselves in this life. This is JUST; this is CHRIST.

AMEN.

Thoughts on a Silver Wedding Anniversary

My wife and I just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. To surprise her, I had a pastor friend come to my church to officiate. I bought silver rings for us to exchange, and I even had a bouquet made for her to carry. I opened the worship service with Scripture and prayer and then launched into my intro before I went to her pew and, on bended knee, proposed. Then the Rev. John Farthing, pastor at Greenbrier (AR) UMC, offered the homily celebrating the great gifts that come from the Lord and our response to these gifts. I've always thought very highly of Dr. Farthing even if he and I are on opposite ends of the political and - to an extent - theological spectrum but I have to say that as often as I have enjoyed his classes (he teaches at Course of Study), this tremendous man really outdid himself. Then he turned on the CD player to "Pachebel's Canon" and summoned us to come forward. After service my little congregation offered us a cash gift from a collection they had taken up during the week, and I whisked my bride away for a weekend in Eureka Springs AR.

While we were driving, I asked my wife about her thoughts and reflections on 25 years. I have to say that as grateful as I am that this wonderful woman didn't kick me out years ago when my drinking was at its worst, I had never really considered how much we've grown over the years together. I also had not really considered how much a part of our "trouble" years were guided by her faith. Though I suppose I know deep down, I never realized how much pain I caused her with my binge drinking. St Paul had it right: I have truly been sanctified by this woman's vision, courage, strength, and faith.

Dr. Farthing wrote the vows that he would ask us to exchange, and I have to say that I could not have done better myself. It is amazing what a difference 25 years can make in what these vows really mean when we stand before the Lord God and a congregation of believers to declare our allegiance to one another for the remainder of our days on this earth. I am quite sure that we don't think enough about what these vows mean when we say them in our youth. It's sort of like the Lord's Prayer; we can recite from memory but few can actually break the Prayer down and expound on the richness of its meaning.

It is not enough to say that I love this woman who said "yes". It is not even enough to say that my level of respect for her is too profound for words. I also admire her beyond words, and even this does not seem to do justice to what I feel for her. All I can say for sure is that the Lord was watching out for me when He put this woman into my life. Maybe I would have grown out of my carelessness sooner or later, but a lesser woman would have put me out long ago. Now it is that I cannot imagine my life without her.

Intelligent Design and Rational Thought

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Declaration of Independence



In 1776, the United States’ Declaration of Independence acknowledged the reality of nature but also injected into the Declaration another reality, a reason for nature’s very existence: “nature’s God”. This document was not only a declaration of independence from another state but was also a document that declared a certain amount of faith in a “Creator” who had granted to man certain “unalienable” rights. With the acknowledgement that this “Creator” God had granted to man these rights is an acknowledgement of a “Creator” God with superior, if supernatural, intelligence.

I do not pretend to fully understand the arguments for or against “intelligent design” as a theory of the creation of the world, but suffice it to say that I believe it to be so. To say otherwise would be, for me, to deny the existence of any god, particularly my God, and my faith would not allow this to be. I cannot deny that which has been seared into my soul. For me, then, and other like-minded believers, the matter is simple. We cannot have come from nothing by mere chance. Logic alone does not allow for such thoughts, and faith renders these thoughts impossible.

Even for the faithful, the matter of the creation of the world and of man is incomprehensible. The weightier matters of the substance of our physical being and that of nature cannot be explained sufficiently for the relatively simply mind of man. The immeasurable “intelligence” responsible for such awe cannot be grasped, let alone explained. For the faithful, then, the matter of how we and this world came to be, and by Whose Mighty Hand, is settled.

Does this discussion about what might be appropriate to teach our children in public schools have to be a choice between science and faith? Must it be so that if we embrace any scientific explanations for the origin of our being that we would by default be in denial of our faith and our God? For children who come from homes where faith and religion are taught, this conflict alone must surely be a source of enormous distress especially for those who are perhaps taught a more fundamentalist scriptural viewpoint. It is not fair to demand of a child to make a choice, for instance, between embracing “natural selection” as the theory it is and risk being accused of rejecting his or his parent’s God. From the “peanut gallery”, this is my observation. It seems to be a battle between those who reject the notion of a supreme “creator” God and those who insist that there can be no other way outside of God.

From faith, from Holy Scripture, and even from the Continental Congress in 1776 is the firm belief in “nature’s God”. There can be no other way. But am I forced to deny my faith if I declare that perhaps Darwin’s theory is not unreasonable even within the context of a divine realm? That perhaps Darwin was on to something minus one key element: divine design?

For me it is completely reasonable. Darwin was a man, no more or less so than I. As such, he was as capable as I of drawing conclusions based on observations made. Whether or not Darwin would acknowledge or embrace it, I will still declare that he was as “blessed” with his mind as I am with mine and that it is no “accident” or chance encounter with some natural phenomenon.

Even still, I look upon the theory of intelligent design and its being taught in public schools with more than a little trepidation. I get to choose the churches and the pastors and Sunday school teachers who have access to my children. I do not have such control in a public school setting. And because of the divine nature of intelligent design, I am not so sure that many public school teachers are equipped to deal with it as scientific theory. This is not to say that I am completely opposed to it being explored in public schools, but I think the school boards will have their hands full in trying to make sure it is handled fairly and without passion or prejudice. With matters of faith, this is most difficult.

Right between the Eyes

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27



I think I've just about had my fill of talk radio. Driving home today from work I became so irritated and distressed at the same time that I honestly did not know what to do or what to think. When I think of talk radio, I think of some lively interaction between the caller and the host. This particular station has hosts who will either scream at the caller with whom they disagree or hang up, or both. They seem to want cheerleaders to call in and confirm that the bile spewing forth from their sewers is worthy of the airwaves or is of such thought-provoking substance worthy of serious discussion. Then of course I remembered that the only one forcing me to listen to this nonsense was me, so I changed the station ... forever.

Today's topic was the ongoing debate among Americans about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. One caller insisted that he has studied the Koran and can say unequivocally that there is nothing "peaceful" about Islam though certain other statements he made reminded me of some other "scholars" who have used the "gotcha" method of "studying" Islam by taking single sentences from the Koran entirely out of its context. I'm sure glad we don't do that with the Bible.

I was waiting for the voice of reason to call in and call the history of Christianity to account for its message of "peace" throughout the Church's history, but then I remembered that reasonable persons gave up on this particular radio host long ago.

Yes, Jesus' message was - and still is - a message of peace, but Jesus is not the topic. In fact, I would come very near to saying that Jesus is not even the focus of the Church though He certainly should be. There is an awful lot of hate going around, and we have successfully directed the general public's focus to the "dangers" of Islam and come close to convincing feeble-minded folks that Islam, and its practitioners, is the root cause of all their problems. Can we really be convinced that these murderous thugs who consider themselves "jihadists" would not be doing what they do were it not for a single religion; in this case, Islam?

If any would dare to be honest, when was the last time we practiced our Christian religion according to the edict of James? When was the last time we as individuals did something specifically for someone in distress, particularly a widow or an orphan? I have to say that I cannot remember the last time I specifically did something for someone, a stranger who needed help, a widow struggling to live out the rest of her days with some semblance of dignity, an orphan who must surely struggle with his sense of self-worth. Oh, I've done little things here and there as long as it was not too much of a bother and it didn't require too much, but I honestly did those things because I needed it and not because someone was in need. There is a huge difference, but I am afraid too many of us cannot see it.

We decry those who practice some perverted form of religion and try to convince others that these criminals and their own brand of "religion" is the cause of everyone's misery, but we rarely look too closely to see if we give strangers any good reason to follow us. We don't challenge ourselves to see if our "religion" gives a widow hope for some dignity or an orphan some hope for tomorrow.

It is not enough to point out what's wrong with something else. What can we do to convince others of what is so "right" about our religion? Rather, what do we CARE to do?

Hurts, don't it?

Angels among Us

Psalm 34 Genesis 18:1-15

As I was driving home from work the other day, something triggered a thought of an old high school history teacher. During my high school days he seemed 10 feet tall to me though I learned years later at the Little Rock airport when we happened to bump into one another that he was actually smaller in stature than I remembered, but he was never a “small” man by any means! He was blessed with wisdom and an ability to convey that wisdom that can only come from enduring a lot of life’s experiences. The problem is that I didn’t fully realize what a wise man he was until years later.

I then remembered a girl who was in my class. We grew up together actually down the street from one another. She was always very studious and – at least I thought at the time – something of a snob. Yet while I was in the hospital when we were in school, she took the time to stop by, bring me class assignments and books, and even offered to help me (she was very well aware that I was a less-than-stellar student!). It was only years later when I was able to appreciate the enormity of the gesture although I strongly resented her taking away my excuses for not doing any school work!

The Bible speaks of angels here and there as what we picture in our minds as these heavenly, winged creatures of brilliant countenance who come directly to us from Heaven and serve as the “messengers” we have always believed them to be. There were the angels at the tomb who announced Jesus’ Resurrection. There were the angels who ministered to Jesus in the wilderness after His encounter with the evil one. There is Michael the archangel who does battle with Satan, and there is Gabriel the archangel who comes to Mary to announce that she had been chosen to give birth to the Son of God.

These angels we are more familiar with even though we’ve never actually seen with our own eyes. There are other angels in our lives, however, who may not be in the same class as the angels created by the Lord God to serve as His messengers, but there are persons in our lives who are no less His messengers.

Coach Rainey, the high school history teacher and current Arkansas state representative, and Jo Carol, the classmate and now attorney, each had a profound impact on my life without my having been aware of it until many years later. Each had a message to me and to others about the importance of making the most of the God-given life that each of us is blessed with, and each one believed in hard work and achievement. There is hardly a way that anyone could convince me that the Lord did not have His hand in each of these encounters as well as so many others throughout my life.

The Genesis passage is a little problematic for a number of reasons. The chapter begins with telling the reader that “the Lord appeared to Abraham…” in the first verse. Then in verse two, “Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby” who are presumably angels on a mission. Abraham immediately offered his hospitality to these three men who were, as we discover in the next chapters, on their way to Sodom and Gomorrah. But the conversation seems to go back and forth between the three men speaking AND the Lord having a conversation with Abraham about Sarah’s impending pregnancy.

What was the writer trying to tell us about this encounter? Was Abraham dealing with angels? Is it significant to be mindful of the relationship between Abraham and the Lord, and then the relationship between Abraham and Lot and these men headed to Sodom? It almost appears to be a chance encounter with very little meaning until we move into verse sixteen and beyond. In fact, this chapter should probably be broken down into the two sections, the first dealing with the announcement of Sarah’s pregnancy and the second dealing with the three men and their apparent mission to protect Lot and his family from the impending doom of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The more I began seriously considering the angels who have crossed my path throughout my life, the more I have come to realize that there are probably more times in my past when I have been somewhat less than hospitable when these angels, human or otherwise, came into my life. Did Abraham immediately recognize these men as angels since the chapter tells us that the Lord had already appeared to him? And does it matter? Would Abraham have been as hospitable to these men otherwise? And since the Scripture does not actually spell it out, do we really know that these men were actually angels?

Here’s the rub. In the Genesis encounters, it is difficult to make the distinction between the Lord and the angels. In chapter 18 alone, we see that “The Lord appears…” and then suddenly there are these three men. And the dialogue that goes between Abraham, the Lord, and the three men does not make a distinction.

So what can we gather from this especially since New Testament theology does not seem to emphasis these messengers as much as in the Hebrew texts? After all, the “messenger” we encounter in the Gospels is the Christ. And just before Jesus is ascended into Heaven, He promises the “Helper”, the Holy Spirit, to guide us. Would this mean then that these heavenly beings, these angels, will not be needed until the Final Day?

I think it goes back to something I heard many years ago and have preached consistently since: that there are certainly such things as accidental pregnancies but that there is no such thing as an accidental life. If we believe the Lord God to be the all-power, all-knowing Being we’ve been taught to believe, then we must know that His will – as Jesus taught us to pray – must be done. And if that means we need to hear from someone to help keep us on track, then I think the Lord will whatever means are necessary to get our attention. If it is a class mate or a high school history teacher, then let it be so.

Each life is precious for this very reason. Are we in such a position as to be able to hear it for what it is? Do we demand something like a supernatural, earth-shattering “sign”, or are we willing and able to hear a “still, small voice”?

The Lord has something to say even today either TO us or THROUGH us. Must His messengers be only those with wings?

Through a Child's Eye

The Alps. My daughter took this photo while on tour. I'm also experimenting with adding some color to my blog. No telling how this is going to turn out.

Just Wondering

Depending on which report we read, there is estimated to be anywhere between 10 million and 12 million illegal aliens currently in the United States. Needless to say, that's quite a gap. I cannot help but to wonder that since these illegals are also known as "undocumented", how can we know how many are in the US? Who makes up these estimates and how do they come up with the numbers? And if they know enough to count even only 10 million and their presence is such a problem, then why not just go get them?

Just wondering.

Faulty Reasoning

What does the Wesleyan Quadrilateral mean to the rank-and-file Methodist Christian? I’ve run across two different pastors in the last couple of months who are using this emphasis to help explain grace, but there is also one highly questionable argument being made to somehow apply the principles of this Quadrilateral to justify the practice of homosexuality. I freely admit that the argument is lost on me.

Some time back I vowed not to waste my time writing anymore about the “issue” of homosexuality within the Church, but a recent comment by a layman forced me to reconsider offering another thought about the alleged “silence” of Jesus in the Gospels on this particular issue after the layman's comment simply was that Jesus never brought it up.

There are a couple of things wrong with this presumption. First of all, it is hard to imagine that what is contained within the synoptic Gospels is every single word ever uttered by Jesus and that if it is not recorded, Jesus never said it. This presumes an awful lot by suggesting that these relatively short books captured and recorded every single incident and moment in Jesus’ three years of public ministry. Such an argument would also suggest that Jesus had His own scribe who wrote down every single word He spoke. Not very realistic.

Secondly, what can we as Christians and as a Church say that we believe about the doctrine of the Trinity in general and Jesus in particular if we honestly believe that He never addressed the issue of homosexuality? If we make the argument that Jesus never said it, are we then denying God in three Persons? One and Same? Alpha and Omega? The Father and I are One?

If Jesus is the Word and was “in the beginning”, it would then stand to reason that Scripture speaks plainly about the abomination in the Hebrew texts, words attributed to the Lord God Himself when He makes His thoughts about men lying with men as with women abundantly clear. If Jesus was God in the flesh and God spoke these words to Moses in the Law and God manifested Himself in the person of the Son, then Jesus did speak directly to the issue of homosexuality in Leviticus.

Our tradition speaks of the eternal nature of the Lord who “does not change”, for me meaning that while we may attempt to justify our selfish and carnal nature by creating a “new” tradition pleasing only to ourselves, the Word of the Lord remains steadfastly unchanged. In a world that is constantly changing, this should be a source of great comfort for us that there is at least something we can count on to remain solid for all time, the foundation that never shifts with generations. Granting ourselves the authority to separate from such solidity speaks only of the reality of “free will” and not much more.

Experience and reason also speak to certain physical realities, namely that certain body parts were not designed for “input” (forgive my being so graphic). We speak of this grand “gift” of sex while failing to realize or acknowledge that the reality of sex is primarily for procreation, not recreation; we were meant to procreate. This is not to say that a husband and wife should feel guilty about enjoying the intimacy that comes from this very natural act or that a woman should be made to feel like less of a woman if she is unable to conceive, but speaking in the context of a “gift” can imply something to be less than holy. Careless rendering of such gifts has the potential of granting to us – by our own design – something entirely pleasing only to ourselves and very appealing to our selfish nature especially when we enable ourselves to remove the Divine will from it.

The Lord God will not be mocked. If we are kidding anyone, it is only ourselves.

Making Room

Matthew 4:1-11
Matthew 6:25-34

I cannot recall a time while growing up when I was ever excited about going to school. I hated school, and I just could not understand the kids who seemed to get so much out of it and actually ENJOY it! Some things were ok, I suppose, but I always had a hard time getting motivated enough to do my homework, study, and prepare for the next day. As a result, I was rarely prepared for tests which did nothing to alleviate my anxiety; in fact, it only made things worse. It was all so routine and mundane. Of course dealing with the routine and the mundane is part of the educational process. Young people have to learn that there is such a thing as “first things first”. The work has to be done before we can play.

Now that school is about to begin, I’m a little excited and nervous at the same time. I’m far enough along that most of the classes I have to take to finish my degree will be geared more toward those things which interest me, but there are still classes I will have to take that I’ve put off for so long.

I’m also more than a little concerned that I may be biting off more than I can chew. Attending classes four nights a week is going to leave very little room for much of anything else. With a full-time job, a part-time ministry, and a family with other activities, I’m going to be burning the candle at both ends.

Being too busy, though, is not my primary concern. A seminary instructor once said that our sense of theology is fed by whatever is primary in our lives. His concern was that seminary students spend too much time reading theology books and studying doctrines and not nearly enough time just reading, studying, and praying the Bible. In that sense, there is not enough focus on the Word of the Lord. Instead, the focus is placed on man’s concept and perspective of the Word and as a result, we can only see the Lord as others would have us to see Him.

There is another down-side to this. More often than not, my prayer life is almost non-existent. This is because I find myself all too often reading the Bible only in search of information for a paper or a sermon. When this happens, much can be overlooked and the voice of the Lord speaking to me through Scripture is inaudible because my focus is on the paper or the sermon and not on what He would will for me to glean from the reading.


I look around and can clearly see that I am not the only one who has this problem. Each of us has things we have to do. Our jobs demand a great deal from us, and our families are no less taxing on our time. Then there are those dreaded “routine” and “mundane” things that have to be tended to such as paying the bills, doing the laundry and shopping. Somewhere in all that, we have to find time just to relax and unwind because as much as there are things we MUST do, there are surely as many things that we would LIKE to do.

We are pulled in too many different directions, doing the best we can to deal with everything and forgetting that the Lord is still there patiently waiting to see when – OR IF – we will ever get around to asking for some help.

This is not to say that the Lord is going to wave a magic wand and tie up all the loose ends of our lives once we finally go to Him for help. What the solution for any of us might be will depend entirely on what He will ask of us as individuals and not necessarily as a people.

Beyond those who are overly busy, there are those who are afraid to turn attention toward the Lord, being afraid of what He may actually ask. These are people who are not turning their backs on the Lord, at least not intentionally. In fact, these are the people who have no doubt that the Lord exists and no doubt that He calls to His faithful and that His voice is unmistakable. These people also know that His call is compelling and undeniable. Faith will draw them in toward what the Lord would require of them, and then the anxiety of not getting everything done will set in and once again, the Lord is pushed aside out of a sense of our fear of failing Him.

Listen to this passage from Mark 6:45-46 after Jesus had fed the five-thousand with only five loaves and two fishes: “Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while He sent the multitude away. And when He had sent them away, He departed to the mountain to pray.”

Clearly even Jesus needed a break. Even in the midst of ministry, “down time” becomes necessary to pause, to reflect, to pray, and sometimes to “be still”. Especially in the midst of ministry, it becomes important to stop and remember why the ministry is even important in the first place! I’ve heard it said that we can sometimes become so wrapped up in our ministries that we completely lose sight of the Lord altogether and that our ministry soon becomes the “god” we seek to worship, the “works” we seek to please. I’m not sure I can find any fault in that statement.

There are two things that have to happen in order to correct our sense of priority. First and foremost must be the will to see to it. We have to want to stop and make time for the Lord. We have to have an inner desire to hear what He has to say, and we have to care enough to listen. Only He knows what we are missing out on when we don’t give Him the time and attention He deserves.

Secondly, we must believe in what Jesus teaches us about seeking the Kingdom of the Lord first and trust that when we make time for Him, He will help us to order our lives so that there is more than enough time to take care of the “routine” and the “mundane” as well as to give us time enough to enjoy the life that He has given us because this, too, is a divine gift.

Giving Him the time He needs to speak to us enables Him to bless and enrich our lives beyond measure, to give us everything we need and then some. Once we make room for the Holy Father, maybe we can then learn to count even the “mundane” and the “routine” among our many blessings to enjoy rather than being burdens to endure.

AMEN.

Deceptive Solutions

It was reported in the Wall Street Journal recently that efficient technology exists by which coal can be processed into liquid form. This liquid can then be piped to refineries and processed into gasoline and diesel. The problem with this technology is that it is prohibitively expensive with not enough promise of return on the investment. To combat this problem, there have been proposals introduced in the US Senate for tax incentives to help take the edge off the risk.

There is a bigger problem, though. It is said that there is roughly 41 years of oil, 65 years of natural gas, and 155 years worth of coal left in the world. This high number for coal is part of what is attracting interest in this process. The only "promise" I see in working to make this coal option somehow more attractive is that we can pass off this energy crisis on the future generations without actually dealing with it now but figuring out new ways to spend government money on bad ideas.

We know that renewal sources of energy must be the solution to our energy needs. While supplies are currently abundant, it is clear that there is a limit to how long this abundance will last regardless of what source of fossil fuels we use. And once it's gone, it's gone. Knowing this, why would we work so diligently to think of better ways to consume non-renewable sources when this will only push the problem out by a relatively few years?

Our need for energy will not go away, but our current resources will be gone soon enough. In the meantime, our Congress is very hostile toward the energy industry and is only serious about foreign sources of energy near election times. And the general public is even less concerned once the shock of price increases passes.

We have been "talking" about taking care of our energy needs for over 30 years. Pushing it out another 155 years will not diminish the need to be more aggressive and innovative about finding new - and renewable - sources of energy. It will only ensure that those who complain the loudest about "foreign" oil around election time will be elected and re-elected until the next generation gets stuck with the problem.

What will we care? We'll be dead.

A Fathers Grief

2 Sam 18:5-33
Luke 15

I remember a movie I saw years ago – and I don’t recall the name of the movie or even exactly how long ago it was – in which the parents had three children and a seemingly normal life. They had a nice home and nice cars and lived in a pretty nice neighborhood. From all appearances, they were living the good life. There was only one thing wrong with this picture-perfect portrait of the all-American family: the oldest of the three kids, a son, was in bad shape.

This oldest child had turned to drugs and alcohol, he stayed out till all hours, he was intensely disrespectful to his parents and downright abusive toward his siblings. By all accounts, this kid was completely out of control.

The parents were giving the boy a great deal of attention in trying to understand what was causing his abusive and destructive behavior. They even tried discipline, but it only made things worse. Doctors, counselors, and psychologists were telling the parents that all the boy needed was a little latitude and a lot of love, that he was just trying to ‘find himself’. So the parents gave him free reign to pretty much do as he pleased.

The problem with all the attention being paid to the eldest child was that the other children were feeling neglected. They could see that their brother was in trouble and they could see that he needed help, but they did not understand – could not understand – why this PROBLEM CHILD was being as bad as he was being and was still being given this wide range in which he only got worse instead of better. The ‘good’ kids just could not understand how it could be that while they played by the rules and kept up with their school work and chores, this ‘bad’ kid was free to come and go as he pleased.

Oftentimes a parent’s love is blind. We see our children through our own eyes and are not always able to see that there may be problems. We always want to believe that we’ve done our best to raise decent human beings and that our hard work, efforts, and sacrifices will pay off in our children’s lives. More often than not, though, others can see problems more clearly because their perspective is not shaded like a parent’s is.

This old movie came to mind as I reread the story of King David’s rebellious son. Absalom was openly fighting against the king, and David was even forced to flee from the wrath of his own son. And yet the warrior king would not turn a hand against his own flesh and blood even at the potential risk of an entire kingdom. In fact, David’s direct orders were to spare the boy.

As blinded as we can be about potential problems with our own children, we can be equally blinded against the “big picture” when our own children are somehow involved and this is where David found himself. I cannot help but to wonder if the well-being of the nation ever crossed his mind as he was running from his own son. As king, David’s responsibilities toward the nation and especially to the Lord God could not be ignored, yet David’s primary concern was not for the nation or for himself. He was worried about what might happen to Absalom.

Did he maybe hope that Absalom would eventually realize the error of his way and repent on his own? We can be pretty sure that the only fear David had was for the life of his son, so we cannot say David was running because he was afraid to confront Absalom. And he certainly could not have been afraid of losing his kingdom because of the Lord’s covenant. The welfare of the kingdom may never even have crossed his mind. So what, then, can a story such as this tell us? We would be pretty sure that the nation of Israel would endure, and we obviously see that Absalom lost his life.

Among all the arguments about the accuracy of the Bible and whether or not the stories can be “literally” true, I still believe that the Lord had to have had a hand in it all. And if we can believe such a thing, we must surely believe that every story has a byline from the Lord God himself and a message to His people. And His people are those who trust Him and believe in His promises.

It seems to me that the underlying theme of the story of Absalom’s death and David’s grief is a relational theme that exists between the Holy Father of all and His “rebellious” children who seem to fight against Him at every opportunity. It may well be that the Lord wanted us to see for all time how our rebellion against Him and His will for our lives affects Him.

It is not easy to “see” the Lord as One capable of emotion but I think that if He is a God of love at all, then He must certainly be capable of showing emotion. We can easily see from the Exodus stories that He is quite capable of anger, but that certainly cannot be all there is to such a One as He. There has to be more, and I think the entire 15th chapter of Luke shows us the portrait of a Heavenly Father who feels what we would know as “emotional” pain when we are separated from Him BY OUR OWN CHOICE and complete elation when we are reconciled to Him, again BY OUR OWN CHOICE.

It is often that many pastors and churches wonder if what we do has any sort of positive effect on people because it is not always readily apparent that we matter one way or the other except for those who attend services. The book of Acts speaks of THOUSANDS who came to believe, and we just don’t see much of that in our little corner of the world. So it can be pretty disheartening to work hard to present something positive to the community and not have the community respond in overwhelming numbers as “THOUSANDS”.

Yet Luke records stories as told by Jesus that help us to remember that even as “THOUSANDS” came to believe as a result of the work and evangelism of the apostles, each individual counted as “one”. And then “one” more, etc. In other words, the new converts were not counted as “THOUSANDS” as a whole necessarily but, rather, as “THOUSANDS” of “one” at a time. And as each “one” came forward and turned his or her heart over to the Lord, the whole of the kingdom of Heaven “REJOICED”.

The parable of the “lost son” is a lot like that old movie I mentioned before except that the “lost son” simply chose to leave his home rather than stay and fight. Yet the parental mentality remains the same in us as in the Holy Father: repent and be welcomed home with no questions asked. And there will be a celebration the likes of which we may never have seen before!

As for the children who always lived and played by the rules, the love and the promise of the Father who was once grief-stricken over the loss of “only one” child offers this: “You are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad because this brother of yours was DEAD and is alive again! He was lost and is now found.” Luke 15:31-32

For the kingdom of Heaven, it is enough that only “one” chooses to come forward.

Religious War and Secular Peace

One of two ideas must be true of the Lebanese army: it is incapable of confronting Hezbollah and controlling its own land and borders, or it is unwilling to do so. The latter would implicate Lebanon as a conspirator with Hezbollah and its senseless attacks on Israel thus changing the face of the current conflict since the fight has not necessarily been with Lebanon though it is on Lebanese soil. The former would require UN intervention since Lebanon would be tacitly considered a non-nation, a no-man’s land in which security and cease fire is not possible.

Perhaps a third consideration would be that Syria still exercises substantial influence in Lebanese politics even if its own army has been withdrawn (though not removed) from the land. Regardless of circumstances, Israel has a national security problem that has been thrust upon her. Considering the influence Hezbollah has in southern Lebanon among the Lebanese people and in the Lebanese parliament, there may actually be little difference between these two, possibly three, scenarios though surely the Lebanese people would not willfully wish this misery upon themselves.

For Israel, this is old hat though it may well be getting a little too old for the Israeli people. It is irrelevant whether modern Israel is the “chosen” biblical Israelite people or if the fight is against a “Zionist” secular state and not necessarily against the “Jews”, as some have tried to argue. A nation, biblical or not, that was in the process of withdrawing from disputed territories on one border for the sake of peace has been fired upon from another border and is left with no option other than to defend itself.

If Hezbollah is, in fact, an extension of the will of the government of Lebanon (itself likely still a puppet government of Syria), does this change the face or the nature of the conflict? Would Israel then be expected to somehow adjust its approach? As it is, Israel has taken as much precaution as is strategically feasible under the circumstances to avoid unnecessary Lebanese civilian casualties while knowing that its enemy is one who hides behind the skirts of its women and the innocence of its children and does not wear the uniform of a nation’s army, leaving Israel with few military options.

In continuing debates and discussions toward a solution, it must never be forgotten or dismissed or brushed aside that Lebanese innocents are being caught in cross fire certainly by Hezbollah design (for the sake of propaganda) just as Israeli civilians are being caught in cross hairs as intentional targets, also by Hezbollah design, even as they try to maintain that their fight is only with the Israeli government and not necessarily against the Israeli people. Deliberately targeting civilian areas makes this point moot although the world seems not to take such notice.

In light of recent events in England and the revelation of what was about to transpire, the world may finally be able to see what Israel has known all along: civilian death and destruction is the whole of Islamist (though not necessarily Islamic) intent. But to what end? There is a bastardized form of religion that has attempted to hide itself behind Islam but has in fact created a whole new religion that has effectively created for the world its “third” war. It must be obvious by now that there are no border disputes involved and no legitimate governments to hold accountable though governments are directly involved.

The world is at war, and it does not seem to notice.

A Blog is a Terrible Thing to Waste

The linked story on Fox News tells a story that I had never seriously considered before now. Even though we in the Methodist Blogosphere certainly have our political opinions, we tend to focus more on theology than on politics. Speaking for myself, I never considered much outside the Methodist blogroll for no particular reason except for limited time to do much surfing, but what few political blogs I have read have been so hateful that I just don't care to waste my time. I have little use for Bush-haters or Clinton-haters, finding most of these verbally violent persons to be little more than angry little people with little minds and nothing much to say that is of any real consequence.

This story on Fox News, however, indicates that bloggers hold a lot more sway in public opinion than many of us realize. It is a certain measure of power that few can handle, and this seems obvious by reading some of the biting comments from the left and from the right. I wonder if any of us realizes the awesome responsibility we unwittingly take upon ourselves when we sign on to the blogosphere, never really being sure of who is reading what we think we have to say. I wonder if we even care.

Of course we want to be read; otherwise we would not be posting on the Internet. I, for one, am still hoping to one day be "discovered" and sydicated (I'll hold my breath now), so I have every intention of offering my best although I certainly have my lazy days. But I cannot honestly say that I consider who outside of the Methodist blog roll may actually be reading what I choose to share. That is, until now.

It matters what we write, and it matters what we think. It is ok to be able to share our opinions about political races and candidates, but it is not ok to take personal swipes at individuals or try to insinuate or create something that just isn't there. Of course there are many who simply do not care. They mean to be as inciteful and as hateful as they can possibly be and are not the least bit concerned about the potential harm that can come as a result. I freely admit that I never gave my postings this much thought before now.

It is clear that public opinion, whether by letters to editors of the local papers or by blog, matters and people are influenced by what is written. Unfortunately it would seem that the most hateful ones are the ones that get the most press and the most attention. Even still, what we write is going to be read by someone somewhere at some time. And if our dear readers are searching for information or opinion, they are open to suggestion and can be influenced positively or negatively.

Whether we like it or not, ours is now an enormous duty not only to ourselves but to every potential reader who may stumble across our blogs. We must consider the good (or the harm) that we can do merely by the words we choose.

Have peace. Lord knows it's needed.