Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32
Philippians 2:1-13
Matthew 21:23-32
Is it possible that He is a God who loves so completely that His love for us could actually be considered a weakness, even a fetish (ie, “obsessive devotion”)? Think about the crazy – and often irrational - things we’ve all done when we were, or are, so completely in love. The world is beautiful and scary at the same time. Life, in its chaos, suddenly makes perfect sense yet makes no sense at all. Food tastes better, but we never seem to have an appetite. Music makes sense, and we who held a certain disdain for poetry and Shakespeare in high school would suddenly find ourselves recalling and quoting from certain poems and even Shakespeare. Love may be a many splendor thing, but the mind that is completely engrossed in someone else is a whole other story and somewhat less than splendid.
In Tuesday’s Dem-Gaz editorial, it was written about a confrontation at the Peabody Hotel in Little Rock where editorial writers had gathered for a conference. The Phelps clan from Topeka’s (KS) own Westboro Baptist Church was also at the Peabody doing what they seem to do best: protesting. Exactly what they were there to protest was never clear, but it is presumed and inferred that editorial writers and other media types in general were in danger of eternal condemnation – or have already been condemned - because they do not express the level of hatred and disdain for homosexuals that Westboro folks have and do so often express. And the editorial quoted John 3:16 in the piece but emphasized John 3:17: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.”
Apparently the Westboro Baptists don’t read John very often – if ever. And it may be telling that Christians in general can easily quote John 3:16 but not much of what follows.
The American Church does not seem to be faring well in our contemporary society. When I was a child growing up in a small town, there was almost nothing happening on Sunday morning except for folks getting ready for church. Oh, there were pockets of those who would choose instead to play golf, go hunting or fishing, or stay home and watch a football game, and stores were closed but for the most part people were in church.
Over the years, there has been a dramatic turn. With the exception of die-hard denominationalists, people seem to have lost faith in the so-called “mainline churches” and have moved toward non-denominational settings or have moved away from the Church altogether. As a result of this apparent shift in priority, every generation or so has seen a shift in emphasis coming from the various churches except for those who have maintained a solid, if somewhat conservative line.
Telling the truth, as it were, should never go out of style, but truth seems to be relative to what is important in our lives. And what is important to us at a particular time is not necessarily as important to our neighbors.
It always seems to boil down to a quest. We are constantly in search of something. Whether it is something new or more of something we don’t seem to have enough of, we are always on a quest. During this time of such drastic and dramatic financial challenges, for instance, people young and old are looking for certainty and security. We all need to know that there is something we can count on, something that will never change and will never shift even as we are constantly changing and shifting. How we or our neighbors choose to embrace a certain reality may change somewhat, but the constant we seek in our lives must remain steadfastly unchanged and as sure and true as the floor we stand on.
So here is a little foundational truth for us all to stand securely on: the God and Father of the New Covenant has not changed and has not changed His mind. About anything. And the bottom line of this constant truth is that He may well be so madly in love with us that He is willing to reach out in whatever way possible to teach us, to show us, to nurture us, to remind us that He is still with us and that He has not given up on us even as we seem to have given up on Him.
According to the tenets of New Testament faith, He has made it somewhat easier – for lack of a better term – to meet Him or to be met by Him through the New Covenant. For some reason, however, and for far too many among us, even this is not good enough. And with this sense of dissatisfaction has come a certain, if profound, complacency and loss of respect.
What do people want? What is it that we seem to respond to more favorably? This is the compelling question that haunts pastors throughout the Church, regardless of denomination. Now I will grant you that there are some pastors who consider increased attendance and new membership as evidence of the fruits of their own individual efforts, and on a certain level it is probably true. People need to know that the pastor cares. And for the life of the church, it is important that the pastor see his role as far more than just a 9-to-5 “job”.
The pastor, however, is not the Church nor is the pastor the final “authority” of the Church although too many do believe that if the pastor is not “right”, then the church cannot be “right” and so they choose to leave. But even these well-intentioned people are on that same perpetual quest, looking for something, anything, that will add or enhance the meaning and purpose of their lives without disturbing their sense of security, failing to see what is right before us – and always has been - waiting to be embraced.
In the confrontation recorded in Matthew21:23-32, Jesus is being challenged in the very same way and in the very same vein in which the Lord God Himself has apparently been challenged according to what is written for us in Ezekiel 18. It seems to be a question of authority and to whom, or to what, we choose to offer and show our respect. Man has created his own system of justice the standards of which are inherently in conflict with the Holy Father. How can this be in a system of justice that presumably has its very roots in a legal system commanded by the Lord God?
What is the difference in two such systems that seem to strive toward the same goal of an ordered society? Notice its profound simplicity: man is loathe to forgive and rarely – if ever – gives second chances. Not really. We talk a good game, but I don’t think we really believe that.
Listen again very carefully to the words of Ezekiel 18:27-29a: “When the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is unfair.’”
So what is unfair in the eyes of Israel? It surely cannot be the “wicked” who call the Lord “unfair”, the “wicked” who have turned from their sorry ways and have finally found peace and fulfillment in their lives by turning to the Lord. I don’t think those who have experienced the Lord’s forgiveness find Him unfair at all. So who is it? Who is doing the asking? Who is issuing a direct challenge to the Lord Himself by such an accusation?
I think it is a safe bet that these allegations against the Lord are not being spoken aloud as much as they are being lived, acted upon, and played out. When someone breaks the law, we expect and demand that they pay the price. Fair enough; the law stipulates penalties. For man, however, it goes much further and deeper than that. We don’t want the transgressors to merely pay; we want them to S*U*F*F*E*R for what they’ve done. This, to man, is true justice and the way things ought to be, and anyone who suggests otherwise is not being “fair” or reasonable, including the Lord Himself.
Yet according to Israel’s objections, the Lord is being unfair because He is allowing even the “wicked” to come to their senses, turn from their evil ways, and live. Why are we not so inclined?
Could it possibly be that the Church is in decline because we cannot seem to make up our minds about the Lord? Or that we have somehow come to the conclusion that the Lord is unfair because He offers salvation to ANY and ALL who come forward so we therefore have a hard time taking Him seriously because transgressors don’t openly suffer and pay to our complete satisfaction?
Yes, it is true enough that we must meet the Lord on His terms and not our own; this is the essence of repentance. But does it have to mean that we who call ourselves faithful can choose to stay away, having somehow justified ourselves to the point that we no longer feel the need for the support and the fellowship of the Church? Or believing in our own piety to the point that we choose not to worship with “sinners” who are not worthy to be in our presence?
It is entirely one thing to find a church with a congregation one can be comfortable with. It is another to be on a constant quest for the “ultimate” church without being willing to bring something, such as one’s life and devotion, to meet the Lord on His terms. It is His authority by which the Church proclaims the Word of Life and not death. Surely we do not, or dare not, demand anything more or offer anything less.
We are specifically denied the authority to judge, but we have been granted and blessed with the authority and privilege to proclaim the Good News of Christ. We must therefore be willing to use this authority to offer to a seemingly hopeless world the same Word of Hope we seek and desire for ourselves for it is in the proclamation of hope and redemption by which we are redeemed.
It is solely His authority to grant; it is our privilege to receive. It is a safe bet, dear friends, that if we need to hear a Good Word of Hope, so does someone else.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Choices
Clay Aiken, the former “American Idol” runner-up and current recording and Broadway artist, has finally come out of the closet, as is so often referred, and acknowledged/admitted/announced that he is gay. Upon this stunning revelation, folks are lining up to congratulate him on his courage and for “setting an example” to so many.
I only have a couple of observations. First, it seems to me that it might require more courage in the show business culture to announce one’s heterosexuality considering that prevailing culture which seems to celebrate anything outside the norm, but then again, exactly what is “the norm” anymore? I don’t mean to take anything away from Mr. Aiken and I am the last man on the face of this planet in a position to pass judgment on anyone, but I am wondering how he has been “freed” or “liberated”? In what way will his life or his religious faith be enhanced by publicly announcing his orientation?
My second thought is more attuned to Mr. Aiken’s sense of religion and faith since he has also publicly acknowledged that he is a “born again” Christian. As a Methodist Christian who is somewhat conservative I have my own thoughts about the whole issue of homosexuality, but I am conflicted between my sense of libertarianism which holds that we are free to do and be as we choose and live by the blessings or consequences of the choices we make and my sense of faith which holds that homosexuality is sinful behavior specifically referred to in Scripture.
While we may blame society for fostering the idea that homosexuality is perfectly natural or normal for those so inclined, I cannot help but to wonder if it is the Church that has done more harm in its awkward and often feeble attempts to speak to this issue as the Body of Christ. Within the United Methodist denomination the issue seems to have split us right down the middle as is evidenced by the narrow voting margins at General Conference in upholding the current language in the Book of Discipline which affirms the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christianity and biblical principles. The difficult and, I believe, proper balance Methodism tries to maintain is also evidenced in our acknowledgment of the sacred worth of every person.
There are other Christian churches, and Topeka KS’s own Westboro Baptist must be included in this category, that seem to promote the fire and brimstone approach to homosexuality in wishing and seemingly praying for the painful death and destruction of homosexual persons, churches that seem to overlook the Gospel According to St. John in which Jesus is quoted as saying that His very presence among us was, and is, intended for our salvation and not our condemnation (John 3:17).
On the other end of the spectrum are those churches such as the Episcopal Church in the US that seems to be falling apart ever since its own election and consecration of a homosexual bishop a few years ago. The conservative elements are seeking to align themselves with more conservative unions while others are feverishly seeking to maintain any sort of union which obviously no longer exists.
I envy those denominations for which homosexuality is a “non-issue”. A Nazarene pastor once told me that the few times it even comes up in their Conferences, it is almost as quickly dismissed. There are no discussions in how to approach the issue or seeking to find compromising words and positions that will satisfy all sides because the Bible seems clear and is affirmed as the final word and authority. Putting such issues aside and refusing to give them serious consideration frees them up to talk about the things that should matter to the Church: worship of the Lord God, making disciples, and being in fellowship with one another. If this pastor’s perspective is accurate, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then these fine brethren truly are “set apart” in Word and Deed against the worldly culture that seems to promote the adage, “If it feels good, do it”.
Jesus did not condemn, nor should we. But being tolerant of a particular practice that is clearly incompatible with biblical teachings does not mean being accepting. Rather, being tolerant only means a willingness to acknowledge a certain reality that a) it exists, and b) we cannot physically stop it. Tolerance does not mean that we have to surrender to it because once we do, we lose our distinction and become assimilated into a world that is clearly hostile to the Kingdom of Heaven. The true sanctuary that should be the Church will cease to exist.
Clay Aiken, like so many others, has made a choice. Whether he considers himself predisposed to such same-gender inclinations is irrelevant to the Church since we should recognize that we are all predisposed to sin, but we are all forced by our knowledge and faith to make certain choices to abide by the biblical principles that have guided the faithful for thousands of years or surrender to a culture that will give in soon enough to another, more attractive choice as it suits itself.
I only have a couple of observations. First, it seems to me that it might require more courage in the show business culture to announce one’s heterosexuality considering that prevailing culture which seems to celebrate anything outside the norm, but then again, exactly what is “the norm” anymore? I don’t mean to take anything away from Mr. Aiken and I am the last man on the face of this planet in a position to pass judgment on anyone, but I am wondering how he has been “freed” or “liberated”? In what way will his life or his religious faith be enhanced by publicly announcing his orientation?
My second thought is more attuned to Mr. Aiken’s sense of religion and faith since he has also publicly acknowledged that he is a “born again” Christian. As a Methodist Christian who is somewhat conservative I have my own thoughts about the whole issue of homosexuality, but I am conflicted between my sense of libertarianism which holds that we are free to do and be as we choose and live by the blessings or consequences of the choices we make and my sense of faith which holds that homosexuality is sinful behavior specifically referred to in Scripture.
While we may blame society for fostering the idea that homosexuality is perfectly natural or normal for those so inclined, I cannot help but to wonder if it is the Church that has done more harm in its awkward and often feeble attempts to speak to this issue as the Body of Christ. Within the United Methodist denomination the issue seems to have split us right down the middle as is evidenced by the narrow voting margins at General Conference in upholding the current language in the Book of Discipline which affirms the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christianity and biblical principles. The difficult and, I believe, proper balance Methodism tries to maintain is also evidenced in our acknowledgment of the sacred worth of every person.
There are other Christian churches, and Topeka KS’s own Westboro Baptist must be included in this category, that seem to promote the fire and brimstone approach to homosexuality in wishing and seemingly praying for the painful death and destruction of homosexual persons, churches that seem to overlook the Gospel According to St. John in which Jesus is quoted as saying that His very presence among us was, and is, intended for our salvation and not our condemnation (John 3:17).
On the other end of the spectrum are those churches such as the Episcopal Church in the US that seems to be falling apart ever since its own election and consecration of a homosexual bishop a few years ago. The conservative elements are seeking to align themselves with more conservative unions while others are feverishly seeking to maintain any sort of union which obviously no longer exists.
I envy those denominations for which homosexuality is a “non-issue”. A Nazarene pastor once told me that the few times it even comes up in their Conferences, it is almost as quickly dismissed. There are no discussions in how to approach the issue or seeking to find compromising words and positions that will satisfy all sides because the Bible seems clear and is affirmed as the final word and authority. Putting such issues aside and refusing to give them serious consideration frees them up to talk about the things that should matter to the Church: worship of the Lord God, making disciples, and being in fellowship with one another. If this pastor’s perspective is accurate, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then these fine brethren truly are “set apart” in Word and Deed against the worldly culture that seems to promote the adage, “If it feels good, do it”.
Jesus did not condemn, nor should we. But being tolerant of a particular practice that is clearly incompatible with biblical teachings does not mean being accepting. Rather, being tolerant only means a willingness to acknowledge a certain reality that a) it exists, and b) we cannot physically stop it. Tolerance does not mean that we have to surrender to it because once we do, we lose our distinction and become assimilated into a world that is clearly hostile to the Kingdom of Heaven. The true sanctuary that should be the Church will cease to exist.
Clay Aiken, like so many others, has made a choice. Whether he considers himself predisposed to such same-gender inclinations is irrelevant to the Church since we should recognize that we are all predisposed to sin, but we are all forced by our knowledge and faith to make certain choices to abide by the biblical principles that have guided the faithful for thousands of years or surrender to a culture that will give in soon enough to another, more attractive choice as it suits itself.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Real Political Heavyweights
Chevy Chase, Matt Damon, Lindsey Lohan. Now these are people we should be paying attention to during this election season, especially when they enlighten us with such clever zingers as “like a bad Disney movie”. Yep, these are people who really have something to say that we need to know. They have that keen, acute political insight that gives us the knowledge and perspective we might otherwise have tended to overlook, living as we do in our utter ignorance and confusion.
None of this is to say that these celebrities, presumably all US citizens, do not have a right to speak to the upcoming election but do the media believe themselves to be offering up any “news”, they the self-appointed “watch dogs of democracy” they believe themselves to be? How do these actors acquire the political pedigree that enables them to speak so intelligently and offer to the debate genuine political discourse that we do honestly need? And to have the press follow them in search of such wisdom?
Consider the profound wisdom of Chevy Chase. He wants Tina Fey, the actress and former “Saturday Night Live” performer, to “decimate” Sarah Palin in her portrayal, a portrayal Gov. Palin herself found to be quite funny. Said political guru Chevy Chase: “This woman is, I can't believe there hasn't been more about it. ... It's just unbelievable to me this woman is actually running for vice president." (Foxnews.com) Well said, Mr. Chase. Sheer brilliance and insight. Stunning clarity. Now that I know what you think, sir, I had better rethink my entire life.
Now I have a question, actually two. First, Mr. Chase is quoted by Fox News as saying, “This woman is, I can’t …” He was apparently about to say something about Gov. Palin but did not. Now did he get cut off by the reporter, or did he just have nothing to say at all? Secondly, he “can’t believe there hasn’t been more about it …” What, exactly, was the “it” to which he refers? Was “it” the pregnant daughter who is not married? Was “it” the challenges Gov. Palin and her husband will face with their youngest child? Was “it” the trooper-gate thing some are trying to hang on the Alaskan governor? What, exactly, is “it” that there has not been more about? I think it is safe to say that the media have all but shown us telephoto snap shots of Gov. Palin taking a shower. What about Gov. Palin has not been covered? What is the “more” Mr. Chase thinks we are lacking?
The real issue, however, is not that Chevy Chase or Matt Damon apparently have nothing of substance to say even as they have a perfect right to say it (or not). The issue is that these snippets of political wisdom were newsworthy enough to pursue. They each got a headline in major news outlets as did Lindsey Lohan’s Myspace blog deriding Gov. Palin’s VP candidacy. Lots of words but little else.
If they support Obama’s candidacy, very well. Sad to say, however, that they have even less to say supporting Obama but would, instead, prefer to be quoted feebly attempting to be clever in derogatory comments about Palin. Sadder still that the media find this worthy of time and attention.
None of this is to say that these celebrities, presumably all US citizens, do not have a right to speak to the upcoming election but do the media believe themselves to be offering up any “news”, they the self-appointed “watch dogs of democracy” they believe themselves to be? How do these actors acquire the political pedigree that enables them to speak so intelligently and offer to the debate genuine political discourse that we do honestly need? And to have the press follow them in search of such wisdom?
Consider the profound wisdom of Chevy Chase. He wants Tina Fey, the actress and former “Saturday Night Live” performer, to “decimate” Sarah Palin in her portrayal, a portrayal Gov. Palin herself found to be quite funny. Said political guru Chevy Chase: “This woman is, I can't believe there hasn't been more about it. ... It's just unbelievable to me this woman is actually running for vice president." (Foxnews.com) Well said, Mr. Chase. Sheer brilliance and insight. Stunning clarity. Now that I know what you think, sir, I had better rethink my entire life.
Now I have a question, actually two. First, Mr. Chase is quoted by Fox News as saying, “This woman is, I can’t …” He was apparently about to say something about Gov. Palin but did not. Now did he get cut off by the reporter, or did he just have nothing to say at all? Secondly, he “can’t believe there hasn’t been more about it …” What, exactly, was the “it” to which he refers? Was “it” the pregnant daughter who is not married? Was “it” the challenges Gov. Palin and her husband will face with their youngest child? Was “it” the trooper-gate thing some are trying to hang on the Alaskan governor? What, exactly, is “it” that there has not been more about? I think it is safe to say that the media have all but shown us telephoto snap shots of Gov. Palin taking a shower. What about Gov. Palin has not been covered? What is the “more” Mr. Chase thinks we are lacking?
The real issue, however, is not that Chevy Chase or Matt Damon apparently have nothing of substance to say even as they have a perfect right to say it (or not). The issue is that these snippets of political wisdom were newsworthy enough to pursue. They each got a headline in major news outlets as did Lindsey Lohan’s Myspace blog deriding Gov. Palin’s VP candidacy. Lots of words but little else.
If they support Obama’s candidacy, very well. Sad to say, however, that they have even less to say supporting Obama but would, instead, prefer to be quoted feebly attempting to be clever in derogatory comments about Palin. Sadder still that the media find this worthy of time and attention.
Panoramic View
Proverbs 3:5-12
“Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” Ephesians 3:20
Sitting in my office the other day, a young man came in with the usual litany of things wrong with his car, the same litany that seems to be customary to those who move from church to church and place to place seeking financial help, only this one didn’t say he was on his way to a job interview in Portland OR. Sometimes these requests are legitimate and sometimes not. Sad to say, it is impossible to tell though I would suspect many would claim they can tell “just by looking”. The truth is, however, that we cannot always be sure that we are seeing everything we need to see in order to make a sound judgment.
It has long been a dilemma for many Christians to deal with those enterprising people who sit on street corners holding signs that say, “Will work for food”. Oh, and they always add, “God bless you.” Ever wonder what they’re thinking as so many drive by without even a glance? I wonder if they wish God’s blessings on them. I’ve only heard of one man who claimed to have offered some fellows just such a job cleaning his yard. According to this man, they had to turn down his generous offer because of a bad back. Darn the luck!
If I sound cynical, it’s because I am. Often I’ve wondered if my heart is so hardened to certain realities that it is impossible for me to empathize with these people. Part of me reasons that there are better ways to go about getting money, ways that will defend one’s integrity and sustain one’s dignity. Another part of me wonders if the reason I cannot empathize is because I’ve never known a day of hunger, not really. Even after a job loss, which is traumatic enough, I didn’t worry so much about where my next meal was coming from. There is, of course, extended family that will never allow a loved one to go hungry, and there are also family connections to help find jobs. With all this surrounding me, I cannot see myself being reduced to such a state in which I would sit on a freeway exit ramp with a coffee can asking for money.
There are several proverbs that speak to the way of a lazy person who will truly reap what he chooses to sow and if the lazy is unwilling to work, they should not expect pay. And if you don’t get paid, you don’t eat! But are we called to make a distinction between those who are just lazy and those who really are down on their luck? It’s not easy to think that someone could be playing us for fools, but are we left then to determine whether or not someone is just taking us for a ride? The bottom line is: if we have it to give and we choose not to give, what else would we do with our excess?
Some would say, “Well, I could give it to the church or some other charity.” Indeed we could, but would we? And if our conscience bothers us and we don’t drop some money in the coffee can and we don’t give it over to charity or to the church, then what is our conscience trying to tell us? That maybe we should have dropped some money in the coffee can or written a check to the church? Or is our conscience that inner voice that suddenly recalls Jesus’ words: I was hungry and you did not feed Me; I was naked and you did not clothe me. I was in prison and you did not come see Me.
It hardly seems fair that Christians should be made to feel guilty so much of the time. There is that part of us that would never dream of turning our backs on those who need, but soon we become overwhelmed at the reality out there that there are MANY who desperately need. How can we, with our limited resources, possibly see to all the need which exists? When is it ok to free ourselves from these pangs of guilt that should bother anyone with a conscience? After all, we cannot see by looking if we are dealing with a lazy bum who needs a swift kick more than he needs a dollar, or a con man who should be sitting in prison instead of on the side of the interstate exit ramp, or if we are looking at a desperate soul who is at the end of his rope and honestly does not know which way to turn.
I wish there could be one pat answer that would cover each scenario on an equal basis, but the truth is there is not one. All we can do is try to be faithful with what we have. If we have a lot, then we should be giving a lot. If we have a little, we should be giving a little but ALWAYS we should be willing to give because no matter how little we think we have, we always have something someone else could use. This is especially true for the Christian who has Christ in his or her heart.
You and I know that money has NEVER, EVER solved a problem – not a real one. Money comes in handy and money will buy extra soup for hungry mouths, but we also know – or should know – that there is not enough money in the entire world that can fill a hungry soul. We cannot buy enough to redeem those who are truly lost.
Sometimes a cash gift can go a long way for those who do truly need. More importantly, however, it is important for us to remember John Wesley’s admonition and encouragement to always “offer them Christ”. Money fulfills man-made needs and desires; Christ the Lord fulfills the real need always and forever. AMEN.
“Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” Ephesians 3:20
Sitting in my office the other day, a young man came in with the usual litany of things wrong with his car, the same litany that seems to be customary to those who move from church to church and place to place seeking financial help, only this one didn’t say he was on his way to a job interview in Portland OR. Sometimes these requests are legitimate and sometimes not. Sad to say, it is impossible to tell though I would suspect many would claim they can tell “just by looking”. The truth is, however, that we cannot always be sure that we are seeing everything we need to see in order to make a sound judgment.
It has long been a dilemma for many Christians to deal with those enterprising people who sit on street corners holding signs that say, “Will work for food”. Oh, and they always add, “God bless you.” Ever wonder what they’re thinking as so many drive by without even a glance? I wonder if they wish God’s blessings on them. I’ve only heard of one man who claimed to have offered some fellows just such a job cleaning his yard. According to this man, they had to turn down his generous offer because of a bad back. Darn the luck!
If I sound cynical, it’s because I am. Often I’ve wondered if my heart is so hardened to certain realities that it is impossible for me to empathize with these people. Part of me reasons that there are better ways to go about getting money, ways that will defend one’s integrity and sustain one’s dignity. Another part of me wonders if the reason I cannot empathize is because I’ve never known a day of hunger, not really. Even after a job loss, which is traumatic enough, I didn’t worry so much about where my next meal was coming from. There is, of course, extended family that will never allow a loved one to go hungry, and there are also family connections to help find jobs. With all this surrounding me, I cannot see myself being reduced to such a state in which I would sit on a freeway exit ramp with a coffee can asking for money.
There are several proverbs that speak to the way of a lazy person who will truly reap what he chooses to sow and if the lazy is unwilling to work, they should not expect pay. And if you don’t get paid, you don’t eat! But are we called to make a distinction between those who are just lazy and those who really are down on their luck? It’s not easy to think that someone could be playing us for fools, but are we left then to determine whether or not someone is just taking us for a ride? The bottom line is: if we have it to give and we choose not to give, what else would we do with our excess?
Some would say, “Well, I could give it to the church or some other charity.” Indeed we could, but would we? And if our conscience bothers us and we don’t drop some money in the coffee can and we don’t give it over to charity or to the church, then what is our conscience trying to tell us? That maybe we should have dropped some money in the coffee can or written a check to the church? Or is our conscience that inner voice that suddenly recalls Jesus’ words: I was hungry and you did not feed Me; I was naked and you did not clothe me. I was in prison and you did not come see Me.
It hardly seems fair that Christians should be made to feel guilty so much of the time. There is that part of us that would never dream of turning our backs on those who need, but soon we become overwhelmed at the reality out there that there are MANY who desperately need. How can we, with our limited resources, possibly see to all the need which exists? When is it ok to free ourselves from these pangs of guilt that should bother anyone with a conscience? After all, we cannot see by looking if we are dealing with a lazy bum who needs a swift kick more than he needs a dollar, or a con man who should be sitting in prison instead of on the side of the interstate exit ramp, or if we are looking at a desperate soul who is at the end of his rope and honestly does not know which way to turn.
I wish there could be one pat answer that would cover each scenario on an equal basis, but the truth is there is not one. All we can do is try to be faithful with what we have. If we have a lot, then we should be giving a lot. If we have a little, we should be giving a little but ALWAYS we should be willing to give because no matter how little we think we have, we always have something someone else could use. This is especially true for the Christian who has Christ in his or her heart.
You and I know that money has NEVER, EVER solved a problem – not a real one. Money comes in handy and money will buy extra soup for hungry mouths, but we also know – or should know – that there is not enough money in the entire world that can fill a hungry soul. We cannot buy enough to redeem those who are truly lost.
Sometimes a cash gift can go a long way for those who do truly need. More importantly, however, it is important for us to remember John Wesley’s admonition and encouragement to always “offer them Christ”. Money fulfills man-made needs and desires; Christ the Lord fulfills the real need always and forever. AMEN.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Absent Substance, Remove Rhetoric
“Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy.”
- Rudy Giuliani, Republican National Convention, 2008
Barack cannot be written off as inconsequential simply because he lacks genuine leadership experience in business or politics. The fact that he has such charisma in the absence of anything of substance, and given the fact that he does in fact have a large gathering, means that those who will vote for him in November are either die-hard Democrats who will never vote for a Republican – or they are non-issue Democrats who hate war, see unemployment headlines, and are generally dissatisfied with their lives; these are the ones who can be, and who have been, swayed and swooned by the empty rhetoric of Barack Obama.
The fact remains, however, that Barack has selected a running mate with a substantial public-service resume and has also posted some policy developments of his own that he would like to see come to fruition should he become the next US president. What this means to Republicans is that it is time to stop pointing out the apparent flaws of Barack Obama and begin talking about the real issues that matter and exactly – in layman’s terms, please – how these issues will be addressed.
How, for instance, can we convince American manufacturers and producers that as they continue to try saving a buck by firing workers and moving a substantial part of their operations overseas that they are actually producing the kinds of citizens who can no longer shop, can no longer spend on life’s little extra’s and that these new, unemployed folks no longer have disposable income after food and shelter and are unable to buy the products that will now be imported from these newly established foreign operations?
I know that such rhetoric is oversimplified, but this is a real issue for the American blue-collar worker and white collar, middle-management types. This is something that is completely beyond their control. What are they supposed to do if the entire industry in which they had once been employed chose to do what their particular employer did: pack up and leave the country? Who will be left to buy their products? Can government offset the job loss? Should government even try? Unemployment benefits will keep groceries on the table and gas in the car for the job hunt but not much more than this. What will we do in the meantime?
It is easy to suggest that the government will pay for retraining, but will the retraining be toward work within another US industry that is also looking at foreign land as its home base where labor is cheaper and workers have no rights or life? Where government regulations and restrictions are not nearly so regulatory or restrictive and governments themselves do not seek to choke the very life out of an industry or tax it to its grave?
We are completely and entirely dependent on foreign oil. During the embargo of the 70’s, the US vowed that such a thing would never happen again. President Bush has made several proposals about how to diminish our dependence and actually create new jobs right here in the US, but his detractors continue to argue that such proposals will take ten years to make any real economic impact, so it is discarded. Imagine if our illustrious “leaders” of the 70’s had given as much attention to such prophetic forethought in the 70’s when forward thinking was needed? Instead, demand is made to pump oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for “immediate” relief for the consumer, never minding that the Reserve was established for the very possibility of a potential, future embargo, and never minding that refining capacity does not seem to exist to handle the additional crude. Unless I am mistaken, then-President Clinton also attempted to release oil from the Reserve to help push down prices and unless I am mistaken, it didn’t work any better then than it will now.
My point is simply this. We have a bona fide need to diminish our dependence on foreign energy sources, and we now have a 6.1% unemployment rate. Why can we not enhance our own drilling capacity, our exploration endeavors, our research and development even toward “green” as well as other energy sources and put people back to work instead of talking smack about a “windfall profits” tax? The government does not need additional revenue sources; people need jobs.
This government and too many of our state governments have their thinking caps on backwards but, sadly, too many citizens no longer even notice that their governments have worked diligently to enhance its own revenue rather than focus on what it will take to get employers to put more people on the payroll. Who is talking about this on the campaign trail? Merely acknowledging our “pain” or sharing in it on some level does nothing to put people back to work.
Citizens can demand it, and demand it we must because it will not just happen unless or until the cozy employment situation of some congressmen and representatives becomes tenuous. Maybe then, perhaps only then, will they finally come to understand our “pain” and understand that more government programs are not always the answer.
- Rudy Giuliani, Republican National Convention, 2008
Barack cannot be written off as inconsequential simply because he lacks genuine leadership experience in business or politics. The fact that he has such charisma in the absence of anything of substance, and given the fact that he does in fact have a large gathering, means that those who will vote for him in November are either die-hard Democrats who will never vote for a Republican – or they are non-issue Democrats who hate war, see unemployment headlines, and are generally dissatisfied with their lives; these are the ones who can be, and who have been, swayed and swooned by the empty rhetoric of Barack Obama.
The fact remains, however, that Barack has selected a running mate with a substantial public-service resume and has also posted some policy developments of his own that he would like to see come to fruition should he become the next US president. What this means to Republicans is that it is time to stop pointing out the apparent flaws of Barack Obama and begin talking about the real issues that matter and exactly – in layman’s terms, please – how these issues will be addressed.
How, for instance, can we convince American manufacturers and producers that as they continue to try saving a buck by firing workers and moving a substantial part of their operations overseas that they are actually producing the kinds of citizens who can no longer shop, can no longer spend on life’s little extra’s and that these new, unemployed folks no longer have disposable income after food and shelter and are unable to buy the products that will now be imported from these newly established foreign operations?
I know that such rhetoric is oversimplified, but this is a real issue for the American blue-collar worker and white collar, middle-management types. This is something that is completely beyond their control. What are they supposed to do if the entire industry in which they had once been employed chose to do what their particular employer did: pack up and leave the country? Who will be left to buy their products? Can government offset the job loss? Should government even try? Unemployment benefits will keep groceries on the table and gas in the car for the job hunt but not much more than this. What will we do in the meantime?
It is easy to suggest that the government will pay for retraining, but will the retraining be toward work within another US industry that is also looking at foreign land as its home base where labor is cheaper and workers have no rights or life? Where government regulations and restrictions are not nearly so regulatory or restrictive and governments themselves do not seek to choke the very life out of an industry or tax it to its grave?
We are completely and entirely dependent on foreign oil. During the embargo of the 70’s, the US vowed that such a thing would never happen again. President Bush has made several proposals about how to diminish our dependence and actually create new jobs right here in the US, but his detractors continue to argue that such proposals will take ten years to make any real economic impact, so it is discarded. Imagine if our illustrious “leaders” of the 70’s had given as much attention to such prophetic forethought in the 70’s when forward thinking was needed? Instead, demand is made to pump oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for “immediate” relief for the consumer, never minding that the Reserve was established for the very possibility of a potential, future embargo, and never minding that refining capacity does not seem to exist to handle the additional crude. Unless I am mistaken, then-President Clinton also attempted to release oil from the Reserve to help push down prices and unless I am mistaken, it didn’t work any better then than it will now.
My point is simply this. We have a bona fide need to diminish our dependence on foreign energy sources, and we now have a 6.1% unemployment rate. Why can we not enhance our own drilling capacity, our exploration endeavors, our research and development even toward “green” as well as other energy sources and put people back to work instead of talking smack about a “windfall profits” tax? The government does not need additional revenue sources; people need jobs.
This government and too many of our state governments have their thinking caps on backwards but, sadly, too many citizens no longer even notice that their governments have worked diligently to enhance its own revenue rather than focus on what it will take to get employers to put more people on the payroll. Who is talking about this on the campaign trail? Merely acknowledging our “pain” or sharing in it on some level does nothing to put people back to work.
Citizens can demand it, and demand it we must because it will not just happen unless or until the cozy employment situation of some congressmen and representatives becomes tenuous. Maybe then, perhaps only then, will they finally come to understand our “pain” and understand that more government programs are not always the answer.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Was it a Dream?
It seems like yesterday, yet so long ago. It was a day like any other: grown-ups at work, kids at school. Nothing special was supposed to happen this day; it was just another day. Now this day is so close and yet still sometimes fades like some distant memory or a very bad dream. At some point we stop and wonder if it really happened at all. Watching the chaos and confusion on the TV news made it all surreal, and yet there was no denying what was being seen live, moments and events unfolding before us as a movie’s very strange and twisted plot. So real, so very real, and yet …
The first plane had crashed into one of the Towers, so there were TV and video cameras trained on the already aflame Tower and broadcasting live around the nation, around the world. It was during this time as we watched the first Tower burn that another plane came from seemingly nowhere and … wait. Did it crash into the second Tower? Did we just see what we thought we saw? This could not be real; surely there could not have been two such occurrences on the same day at virtually the same hour! What was happening? My Dear God, will it end?
Working in a rather loud and chaotic environment, suddenly everything got quiet. There was little talk, hardly any movement. We sat transfixed on the TV screen trying to take in what we all thought we had just seen. Once in awhile, a glance at a co-worker hoping for denial but seeing instead confirmation. The phones that were usually constantly abuzz fell silent, and time stood still. For an eternity yet for a moment, life ceased. It was a dream, surely a dream. This cannot happen to us, this should not be happening at all!. Those poor people. Had they any idea what they were walking into? Did they somehow know that such a day as this would ever come?
No one can possibly be prepared for this. The TV news showed us people running away from the scene while police and firefighters rushed in. Utter chaos and confusion even as some were walking along some street away from the Towers as in a daze, not quite sure what to do or where to go. Suddenly, just as time seemed to begin its forward march, something else. Wait. Am I seeing a nightmare intensified? How can a whole Tower fall like that? And then the other. This is not real! Dear God, what is happening? Those people inside the buildings, those poor people … and the brave police officers, rescue workers and firefighters. Hadn’t they all just rushed inside these buildings to render aid? Who will save them?
Not much else happened that day, at least at work. The TV news continually replayed the crashes, the collapses. And it seems that the more often these awful moments were replayed, the further removed we were, the less real it seemed. We watched it over and over so much that it no longer seemed real at all. There were no coherent thoughts, nothing was happening. We, sitting so far away in relative comfort, could feel and share the confusion as we watched New Yorkers, our fellow citizens, walking out of Manhattan on streets and bridges normally cluttered with cars of all kinds. So many, moving so slowly and yet not moving at all.
I was awakened from my daze around 3:30pm CST by a phone call from my 13-year-old daughter. “Daddy, why did they do this? Is it true that there are Muslim terrorists who have attacked America and are out to kill American and Christian children? That’s what I heard today in school. Daddy, who are these people who want to kill us? Daddy, I need you to come home. Daddy, are you there?”
“Lots of people are confused right now, baby girl, but there are no terrorists out to get little children. What you were hearing is what happens when people are frightened and don’t know what’s really going on. You’re perfectly safe, dear child. You are protected by the Lord, and He will watch over you especially while you’re so afraid. I’ll be home before you know it. Just do your homework; turn the TV off. There is nothing you need to see right now. Daddy loves you.”
Suddenly I was violently shoved from my daze and confusion. Now I was angry and hurt. My precious child had been violated. The innocence of her age and youth had been shattered. Everything she had come to believe had been challenged by some notion that hers was no longer a safe world. New York was so far away and yet so near. If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere. It’s up to you, New York …
The first plane had crashed into one of the Towers, so there were TV and video cameras trained on the already aflame Tower and broadcasting live around the nation, around the world. It was during this time as we watched the first Tower burn that another plane came from seemingly nowhere and … wait. Did it crash into the second Tower? Did we just see what we thought we saw? This could not be real; surely there could not have been two such occurrences on the same day at virtually the same hour! What was happening? My Dear God, will it end?
Working in a rather loud and chaotic environment, suddenly everything got quiet. There was little talk, hardly any movement. We sat transfixed on the TV screen trying to take in what we all thought we had just seen. Once in awhile, a glance at a co-worker hoping for denial but seeing instead confirmation. The phones that were usually constantly abuzz fell silent, and time stood still. For an eternity yet for a moment, life ceased. It was a dream, surely a dream. This cannot happen to us, this should not be happening at all!. Those poor people. Had they any idea what they were walking into? Did they somehow know that such a day as this would ever come?
No one can possibly be prepared for this. The TV news showed us people running away from the scene while police and firefighters rushed in. Utter chaos and confusion even as some were walking along some street away from the Towers as in a daze, not quite sure what to do or where to go. Suddenly, just as time seemed to begin its forward march, something else. Wait. Am I seeing a nightmare intensified? How can a whole Tower fall like that? And then the other. This is not real! Dear God, what is happening? Those people inside the buildings, those poor people … and the brave police officers, rescue workers and firefighters. Hadn’t they all just rushed inside these buildings to render aid? Who will save them?
Not much else happened that day, at least at work. The TV news continually replayed the crashes, the collapses. And it seems that the more often these awful moments were replayed, the further removed we were, the less real it seemed. We watched it over and over so much that it no longer seemed real at all. There were no coherent thoughts, nothing was happening. We, sitting so far away in relative comfort, could feel and share the confusion as we watched New Yorkers, our fellow citizens, walking out of Manhattan on streets and bridges normally cluttered with cars of all kinds. So many, moving so slowly and yet not moving at all.
I was awakened from my daze around 3:30pm CST by a phone call from my 13-year-old daughter. “Daddy, why did they do this? Is it true that there are Muslim terrorists who have attacked America and are out to kill American and Christian children? That’s what I heard today in school. Daddy, who are these people who want to kill us? Daddy, I need you to come home. Daddy, are you there?”
“Lots of people are confused right now, baby girl, but there are no terrorists out to get little children. What you were hearing is what happens when people are frightened and don’t know what’s really going on. You’re perfectly safe, dear child. You are protected by the Lord, and He will watch over you especially while you’re so afraid. I’ll be home before you know it. Just do your homework; turn the TV off. There is nothing you need to see right now. Daddy loves you.”
Suddenly I was violently shoved from my daze and confusion. Now I was angry and hurt. My precious child had been violated. The innocence of her age and youth had been shattered. Everything she had come to believe had been challenged by some notion that hers was no longer a safe world. New York was so far away and yet so near. If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere. It’s up to you, New York …
Monday, September 08, 2008
A Fight not worth Fighting
IRS rules are clear: churches and pastors must not endorse political candidates lest they risk the tax-exempt status of those churches. Beyond this legal restriction, however, there must surely be more very good reasons why it is better for everyone if churches, as entities, and their pastors stay out of the electoral process. And being removed from this process includes, in my humble opinion, candidates for public office speaking from these churches’ pulpits, ostensibly to give their “testimony”. Not to suggest that candidates do not have their faith stories to share but if they had never been invited to any churches prior to their declaration for office, why the invite after such a declaration?
The Alliance Defense Fund is set to challenge these IRS rules and is reportedly recruiting “several dozen” church pastors to endorse political candidates from their respective pulpits on September 28, according to the Washington Post. In the name of “free speech” these pastors are going to be asked to preach, from their pulpits, about faith in certain human beings who happen to be political candidates for public office. And while these pastors put perhaps their own professional credentials and their respective churches’ tax-exempt status on the line, they risk serving no purpose other than that which has been established by the Alliance Defense Fund. In other words, fighting a fight that does not need to be fought. At the very least, this is not an issue churches should be so concerned about.
None of this is to suggest that church pastors cannot be involved as individuals in the political process nor should church members – as individuals - remove themselves from the political process. It is the duty of responsible citizens, clergy or laity, to inform themselves as best they can and then cast their vote accordingly. It is ok to become involved in some political action committee or partisan party if one so chooses. We as individuals are not only protected during this process but are actually urged to get involved and become informed. The more we know, the less likely we are to get hood-winked by a clever campaign slogan.
This fight that the ADF is choosing to stage, however, is going to cost a lot more than many are seriously considering. And churches which allow their pastors to get involved (surely these pastors are not making such a monumental decision to get the church involved without conferring with some church council or committee) are asking for trouble they have not seriously – if biblically – considered. It is not a matter of merely standing up to the IRS, which may always be a bad idea, but is also a matter of getting the church off track and misstating or misrepresenting the mission and ministry of Christ’s Church, none of which includes politics.
The biggest problem I see in this is misrepresenting the candidates themselves. We reasonably know that there are enough weak-minded and weak-spirited folks in our churches who can easily be misguided into believing that candidate X or candidate Y is ordained of God to lead us or represent us or even save us (save us from what will depend entirely upon the group being addressed, of course) while drawing our focus away from the Only One who can save and suggesting that we put our faith in this or that candidate instead, insinuating that the “other” candidate, the Russians, the Iranians, the terrorists, etc. is the true and genuine threat to our well-being, and that our candidate is the only one who can protect us from these threats.
It is a very fine line these pastors may choose to walk, first, by hijacking the pulpit from which only the Word of the Lord should be proclaimed; secondly, by misleading people into believing that there are men or women who can “save” us; thirdly, by trapping some who have come to worship the Lord God and not be subjected to a political speech; fourth, by perhaps using these political candidates as a means of self- or church-promoting, somehow insinuating some air of legitimacy and importance to the pastor.
Regardless of motive, there is little of any lasting value that will come from such challenges. It is not unlike the challenge for prayer in public school in which some believe their “right” to pray has somehow been infringed when actually the only thing restricted is one’s “presumed” right to subject others to one’s own prayer. No court has declared that one cannot pray, and no court or the IRS has stated or ruled that individual clergy or church members cannot be involved in the political process.
The Holy Church of the Lord is called to be a sanctuary from the world. The Church should not attempt to assimilate itself into the world through the political process lest the Image and moral authority of Christ’s Holy Church become distorted or compromised. The Church cannot be the Body of Christ and a political action committee at the same time. I would actually suggest that the church make a choice and become one or the other, and then let the chips fall where they may.
The Alliance Defense Fund is set to challenge these IRS rules and is reportedly recruiting “several dozen” church pastors to endorse political candidates from their respective pulpits on September 28, according to the Washington Post. In the name of “free speech” these pastors are going to be asked to preach, from their pulpits, about faith in certain human beings who happen to be political candidates for public office. And while these pastors put perhaps their own professional credentials and their respective churches’ tax-exempt status on the line, they risk serving no purpose other than that which has been established by the Alliance Defense Fund. In other words, fighting a fight that does not need to be fought. At the very least, this is not an issue churches should be so concerned about.
None of this is to suggest that church pastors cannot be involved as individuals in the political process nor should church members – as individuals - remove themselves from the political process. It is the duty of responsible citizens, clergy or laity, to inform themselves as best they can and then cast their vote accordingly. It is ok to become involved in some political action committee or partisan party if one so chooses. We as individuals are not only protected during this process but are actually urged to get involved and become informed. The more we know, the less likely we are to get hood-winked by a clever campaign slogan.
This fight that the ADF is choosing to stage, however, is going to cost a lot more than many are seriously considering. And churches which allow their pastors to get involved (surely these pastors are not making such a monumental decision to get the church involved without conferring with some church council or committee) are asking for trouble they have not seriously – if biblically – considered. It is not a matter of merely standing up to the IRS, which may always be a bad idea, but is also a matter of getting the church off track and misstating or misrepresenting the mission and ministry of Christ’s Church, none of which includes politics.
The biggest problem I see in this is misrepresenting the candidates themselves. We reasonably know that there are enough weak-minded and weak-spirited folks in our churches who can easily be misguided into believing that candidate X or candidate Y is ordained of God to lead us or represent us or even save us (save us from what will depend entirely upon the group being addressed, of course) while drawing our focus away from the Only One who can save and suggesting that we put our faith in this or that candidate instead, insinuating that the “other” candidate, the Russians, the Iranians, the terrorists, etc. is the true and genuine threat to our well-being, and that our candidate is the only one who can protect us from these threats.
It is a very fine line these pastors may choose to walk, first, by hijacking the pulpit from which only the Word of the Lord should be proclaimed; secondly, by misleading people into believing that there are men or women who can “save” us; thirdly, by trapping some who have come to worship the Lord God and not be subjected to a political speech; fourth, by perhaps using these political candidates as a means of self- or church-promoting, somehow insinuating some air of legitimacy and importance to the pastor.
Regardless of motive, there is little of any lasting value that will come from such challenges. It is not unlike the challenge for prayer in public school in which some believe their “right” to pray has somehow been infringed when actually the only thing restricted is one’s “presumed” right to subject others to one’s own prayer. No court has declared that one cannot pray, and no court or the IRS has stated or ruled that individual clergy or church members cannot be involved in the political process.
The Holy Church of the Lord is called to be a sanctuary from the world. The Church should not attempt to assimilate itself into the world through the political process lest the Image and moral authority of Christ’s Holy Church become distorted or compromised. The Church cannot be the Body of Christ and a political action committee at the same time. I would actually suggest that the church make a choice and become one or the other, and then let the chips fall where they may.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
More Press, More Shame
I don’t think sarcasm is one of my better qualities and I also don’t think sarcasm serves much real use, but I have to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the press for exposing the teenage pregnancy in the Palin family. I have to say that I feel much better about life in general now that this scandal has been brought to light, and I am especially thankful that these self-appointed “guardians of truth” and “public watchdogs” are ever vigilant and prepared to inform me of things I really need to know. And the fact that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant (and currently unmarried) is one bit of information I really needed to be aware of as I continue to judge for myself whom I will vote for in this coming election.
Thankfully, the true gentleman from Illinois barked his take on the media’s vigilance in the matter of Gov. Palin’s daughter and her situation: FAMILY IS OFF-LIMITS, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. Is it funny or rather, scary that presidents and candidates must make a public declaration before it is understood that one’s spouses and children are not candidates for public office and are therefore exempt from the cruelty and scrutiny of such leaches hungry for a story, any story, that will make headlines and produce a byline? Isn’t it sad that such items actually make the news, having been submitted by overzealous reporters but also having gotten past presumably more seasoned and experienced editors? This is news?
Senator Obama is not going to get my vote for president this time around, but he has certainly earned my respect and a second look for his willingness to step up in this case and hammer the media for going into that which should be perpetually off-limits without public declaration. It is not necessary that we know such things about anyone, and the person or persons who “exposed” this earth-shaking information should be brought to light and called on to explain what they hoped or expected to achieve from such a shameful display.
Is this kind of reporting the sort of thing we simply have to learn to live with, sort of like the military’s collateral damage regarding those innocents who are harmed incidentally, for the sake of the bigger picture? I say absolutely not. Putting a muzzle on such reporting in the mainstream media – which is fast showing itself a follower of such trailblazing reporting as that of "The National Enquirer" – will have to be done by we who expect more from these self-appointed “guardians”. They hide behind the US Constitution in such matters and will suggest that we must learn to live with such things in the name of “freedom”. It is fast becoming more and more evident that it is the media, perhaps, from which we need to be protected.
Be aware that we do ultimately have the power to control this monster and help harness their self-declared “power” and independence. Stop demanding such shameful displays. Stop buying the publications that print such drivel. And for pity’s sake, stop taking such stories so seriously. These reporters give it because far too many of us willingly take it, and eagerly. Boy, do we love scandals.
Still, they who brought to light this “expose” should be ashamed of themselves even as there is virtually no way they can be held accountable for what they’ve done to a 17-year-old who did not deserve national attention on a very private situation. It is not my business that she and her boyfriend had a lapse in judgment. Why are the media trying to make it the nation’s business?
Thankfully, the true gentleman from Illinois barked his take on the media’s vigilance in the matter of Gov. Palin’s daughter and her situation: FAMILY IS OFF-LIMITS, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. Is it funny or rather, scary that presidents and candidates must make a public declaration before it is understood that one’s spouses and children are not candidates for public office and are therefore exempt from the cruelty and scrutiny of such leaches hungry for a story, any story, that will make headlines and produce a byline? Isn’t it sad that such items actually make the news, having been submitted by overzealous reporters but also having gotten past presumably more seasoned and experienced editors? This is news?
Senator Obama is not going to get my vote for president this time around, but he has certainly earned my respect and a second look for his willingness to step up in this case and hammer the media for going into that which should be perpetually off-limits without public declaration. It is not necessary that we know such things about anyone, and the person or persons who “exposed” this earth-shaking information should be brought to light and called on to explain what they hoped or expected to achieve from such a shameful display.
Is this kind of reporting the sort of thing we simply have to learn to live with, sort of like the military’s collateral damage regarding those innocents who are harmed incidentally, for the sake of the bigger picture? I say absolutely not. Putting a muzzle on such reporting in the mainstream media – which is fast showing itself a follower of such trailblazing reporting as that of "The National Enquirer" – will have to be done by we who expect more from these self-appointed “guardians”. They hide behind the US Constitution in such matters and will suggest that we must learn to live with such things in the name of “freedom”. It is fast becoming more and more evident that it is the media, perhaps, from which we need to be protected.
Be aware that we do ultimately have the power to control this monster and help harness their self-declared “power” and independence. Stop demanding such shameful displays. Stop buying the publications that print such drivel. And for pity’s sake, stop taking such stories so seriously. These reporters give it because far too many of us willingly take it, and eagerly. Boy, do we love scandals.
Still, they who brought to light this “expose” should be ashamed of themselves even as there is virtually no way they can be held accountable for what they’ve done to a 17-year-old who did not deserve national attention on a very private situation. It is not my business that she and her boyfriend had a lapse in judgment. Why are the media trying to make it the nation’s business?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Pulpits, Press, and Public Policy: the Politics of Abortion
It happens during every election and intensifies whenever a Catholic Democratic (or is it Democratic Catholic?) politician is running for office against a more conservative, perhaps evangelical Republican Protestant (or is it Protestant Republican?). Abortion takes center stage, and politicians from both sides use their own opinions and talking points in vain efforts to appear more pious than the other. It is almost embarrassing to watch these mostly professional attorneys attempt to argue finer theological points as if so well versed in religion and theology that it had come down to a coin toss about whether to go to seminary or law school.
I’ve all but given up politics simply because I’m tired of caring so much about something that is beyond my control. I am not an affluent citizen, and there is nothing so special about me that a political candidate would worry about having his or her photo taken with me or even answering my letters, e-mails, or phone calls. Essentially it is that I have no clout, therefore no politician has time for me. No sweat. I’ve not lost any sleep over it. In fact, I have found that food tastes better and the air smells cleaner and my temper is not so quick to flare after I stopped reading and listening to the political rhetoric precisely because of its lack of substance. Besides, this particular presidential election all but started right after the 2006 mid-term elections. I know I am not alone in “burn out”.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, has been taken to task by Catholic Church leaders this week as she has attempted to use Catholic theology to justify her “pro-choice” stance by citing man’s free will and ultimate responsibility for one’s own actions (not entirely off the mark here, by the way). However, one of her spokespersons, Brendan Daly, dipped into St. Augustine and quoted a passage that was an appropriate and interesting question but is out of its 5th century context in 21st century America: 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this quote from St Augustine can go in several reasonable directions and still miss the point he was trying to make. Pelosi’s crew attempts to use it as a fundamental Church teaching about the conception of a child; a bona fide theologian who specializes in St Augustine stated simply that Augustine was wondering when a soul is actually imparted to an unborn human child. I somehow do not believe that abortion was a big issue during Augustine’s time.
Speaker Pelosi graduated from a Catholic school, presumably when she was a child, but I wonder if that reference is by her own folks or the media in attempting to give Ms. Pelosi a theological or Catholic pedigree, suggesting that she can support her opinions on matters of catechism teachings about life, conception, and abortion. Clearly, however, it is that she has run afoul of what the catechism actually teaches, and several bishops have called her on it. In spite of these learned objections to her opinion, she appears ready to defend herself and what she believes the Church is teaching. She is, in fact, entitled to her opinion, but does it matter?
It is unfair – and unconstitutional – to use religion as a litmus test for public office. It is equally unreasonable and immeasurable to attempt to use faith in the same way – and yes, there is a difference. Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian and man of great faith, and is arguably the worst president of his time. Can it be said that his faith caused these failures, or were failures evidence of his lack of faith? Either way, faith is an unfair standard of measure. So why do we allow the allegedly unbiased media to provoke us to such a point that we would judge a candidate’s worthiness for public office based on his or her standard or measure of faith?
Unfortunately, abortion has been hijacked by politicians who seek favor with a particular group, whether NARAL or National Right to Life. Rather than have serious discussions about formulating serious policy about a gravely serious subject, we allow those seeking office to jerk our heart strings and wreak havoc with our emotions. Speaker Pelosi and Joe Biden are on the Church’s radar screen like John Kerry was in 2004 with some bishops suggesting that these wayward Catholics should refrain from participating in Holy Communion while they actively support abortion. And most likely as in 2004, some priest will ignore the bishops and serve Communion to these parishioners anyway.
So what was accomplished in 2004 that we can reasonably expect in 2008? My guess is nothing, nothing of substance anyway. We will call names and point fingers, the media will report whatever will get folks to pay attention to their news outlet, emotions will churn, yet absolutely nothing will come of it.
It is perfectly ok for church leaders to call on state leaders who share their faith just as some arms of the United Methodist Church have publicly derided United Methodist George W. Bush regarding the US presence in Iraq as well as some economic policies, but I sometimes wonder if these church leaders are not violating some ethical “line in the sand” by making such public comments critical of individual persons? At the very least, when we reduce ourselves to accusations, name-calling, and finger-pointing, we are very un-Christ-like. For this we should all be ashamed.
Voters have to exercise extreme caution when measuring a political wanna-be according to his or her statements regarding faith, regardless of the setting. It is ok to publicly profess Christ as Savior, but it is also much better and the Kingdom much better served if voters can actually see the faith rather than hear about the religion. We must always remember that the US Constitution was written in such a way for a specific purpose. We are not electing national religion leaders, and these wanna-be’s should stop pretending to be religious scholars. Abortion is a moral issue that the Church itself has failed to adequately address over the years. Politics will not turn a heart of stone … unless, of course, it will win votes.
I’ve all but given up politics simply because I’m tired of caring so much about something that is beyond my control. I am not an affluent citizen, and there is nothing so special about me that a political candidate would worry about having his or her photo taken with me or even answering my letters, e-mails, or phone calls. Essentially it is that I have no clout, therefore no politician has time for me. No sweat. I’ve not lost any sleep over it. In fact, I have found that food tastes better and the air smells cleaner and my temper is not so quick to flare after I stopped reading and listening to the political rhetoric precisely because of its lack of substance. Besides, this particular presidential election all but started right after the 2006 mid-term elections. I know I am not alone in “burn out”.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, has been taken to task by Catholic Church leaders this week as she has attempted to use Catholic theology to justify her “pro-choice” stance by citing man’s free will and ultimate responsibility for one’s own actions (not entirely off the mark here, by the way). However, one of her spokespersons, Brendan Daly, dipped into St. Augustine and quoted a passage that was an appropriate and interesting question but is out of its 5th century context in 21st century America: 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this quote from St Augustine can go in several reasonable directions and still miss the point he was trying to make. Pelosi’s crew attempts to use it as a fundamental Church teaching about the conception of a child; a bona fide theologian who specializes in St Augustine stated simply that Augustine was wondering when a soul is actually imparted to an unborn human child. I somehow do not believe that abortion was a big issue during Augustine’s time.
Speaker Pelosi graduated from a Catholic school, presumably when she was a child, but I wonder if that reference is by her own folks or the media in attempting to give Ms. Pelosi a theological or Catholic pedigree, suggesting that she can support her opinions on matters of catechism teachings about life, conception, and abortion. Clearly, however, it is that she has run afoul of what the catechism actually teaches, and several bishops have called her on it. In spite of these learned objections to her opinion, she appears ready to defend herself and what she believes the Church is teaching. She is, in fact, entitled to her opinion, but does it matter?
It is unfair – and unconstitutional – to use religion as a litmus test for public office. It is equally unreasonable and immeasurable to attempt to use faith in the same way – and yes, there is a difference. Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian and man of great faith, and is arguably the worst president of his time. Can it be said that his faith caused these failures, or were failures evidence of his lack of faith? Either way, faith is an unfair standard of measure. So why do we allow the allegedly unbiased media to provoke us to such a point that we would judge a candidate’s worthiness for public office based on his or her standard or measure of faith?
Unfortunately, abortion has been hijacked by politicians who seek favor with a particular group, whether NARAL or National Right to Life. Rather than have serious discussions about formulating serious policy about a gravely serious subject, we allow those seeking office to jerk our heart strings and wreak havoc with our emotions. Speaker Pelosi and Joe Biden are on the Church’s radar screen like John Kerry was in 2004 with some bishops suggesting that these wayward Catholics should refrain from participating in Holy Communion while they actively support abortion. And most likely as in 2004, some priest will ignore the bishops and serve Communion to these parishioners anyway.
So what was accomplished in 2004 that we can reasonably expect in 2008? My guess is nothing, nothing of substance anyway. We will call names and point fingers, the media will report whatever will get folks to pay attention to their news outlet, emotions will churn, yet absolutely nothing will come of it.
It is perfectly ok for church leaders to call on state leaders who share their faith just as some arms of the United Methodist Church have publicly derided United Methodist George W. Bush regarding the US presence in Iraq as well as some economic policies, but I sometimes wonder if these church leaders are not violating some ethical “line in the sand” by making such public comments critical of individual persons? At the very least, when we reduce ourselves to accusations, name-calling, and finger-pointing, we are very un-Christ-like. For this we should all be ashamed.
Voters have to exercise extreme caution when measuring a political wanna-be according to his or her statements regarding faith, regardless of the setting. It is ok to publicly profess Christ as Savior, but it is also much better and the Kingdom much better served if voters can actually see the faith rather than hear about the religion. We must always remember that the US Constitution was written in such a way for a specific purpose. We are not electing national religion leaders, and these wanna-be’s should stop pretending to be religious scholars. Abortion is a moral issue that the Church itself has failed to adequately address over the years. Politics will not turn a heart of stone … unless, of course, it will win votes.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Reality borne of Faith expressed in Works
Isaiah 51:1-6
James 2:14-26
Matthew 16:13-20
Faith, like love, is probably one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the Christian vernacular because of misunderstanding and misuse of the very Bible which proclaims the central role that faith necessarily plays in the life of the individual and in the life of a congregation. The reason such misunderstandings occur may be due to a conflict between the concept of faith and the manifestation of our faith; i.e., “works”. And I don’t think anyone illustrates the seeming conflict better than James when he states: “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show my faith by my works.” (2:18a,b)
The Protestant reformer Martin Luther had enough difficulty with James that he would probably have preferred the book removed from the canon so that faith might not be overwhelmed by James’ seeming overemphasis on works. While I do not pretend to know the mind of Martin Luther, it does appear on the surface that an “issue” was created rather than addressed by what I consider to be a misunderstanding and perhaps a misinterpretation of what James is saying altogether. It could well have been that one single phrase that James uses: ‘NOT by faith alone …’
We should reasonably know that there can be no conflict between faith and works, they being two sides of the same coin. Each is perfected by the other, and one cannot exist without the other, not completely. According to James, one absent the other becomes void of its essence, its truest form.
It is fair to say, however, that Luther came to his understanding of faith and its central role in our relationship with the Lord honestly. The Bible is clear: it is grace, the Lord’s unmerited favor, by which we are justified before the Lord; it cannot be earned by the works of our hands. But there seems to be an element missing in Luther’s understanding, and outright rejection, of how James’ concept of works should relate to one’s expression of faith. Righteous works are not an attempt to please the Lord; they serve as a witness to others as to the true nature of the Lord Himself. And such a witness is not restricted to such obvious acts of mercy as the Food Pantry but does include how we choose to live, work, and play.
Jesus’ entire role is centered on His witness to the true nature of the Lord God; He is showing us by word and deed what the Holy Father looks like not to the eye nor even to the mind but, rather, to the heart. And if we are true and genuine witnesses of Christ as His disciples, then we understand our role in witnessing to His nature so that by the Holy Spirit others can then see the truly Divine Image, the perfection of that Image in which we are all created.
As I have stated so often, I don’t believe that Jesus ever felt a need to “prove” Himself in any way though we might think it would have made His ministry a little easier. After all, maybe many more would have come running each time Jesus turned His hand. But then we would have been left with a lot of magic tricks rather than bona fide miracles performed within their proper context. Such cheap attempts to appease man’s eyes would defeat the entire focus of Jesus’ call to repentance by faith, a call to believe that there is something much greater before us than meets the eye. A warrior messiah would have dealt with the occupying Romans, for instance, but the true enemy would still be present and just as powerful … and just as compelling.
Jesus’ followers were presumably all Jewish. That is to say, it may be a foregone conclusion that they already believed in God. Simply believing in an existence, however, merely acknowledging the reality of a possibility does not constitute faith, and this may be the challenge that Jesus is posing to His disciples, then as well as now. In fact, such a challenge should be overwhelming on any level. Think about our own concepts of the Almighty, all powerful, God: the God Of All Creation humbling Himself to walk among His own creation rather than sit on a throne?? This concept is very nearly impossible to embrace!
It is also worth remembering that Jesus never presented Himself as an “alternate” god or a co-god. His message is a constant reminder that by the teachings of religious leaders and teachers who seem to make things up as they go along however noble the intent, the gap inherently created by false or misleading doctrine such as hand-washing as a divine tradition (Matthew 15:10-20) is ever widening. By losing a true and proper focus, we become further and further separated from the one, true, living God as we create our own gods made a little more palpable to us by our imaginations and personal desires. At that point, faith is completely lost.
Jesus always spoke of the Father as the necessary point of focus and the only One worthy of our worship. This reality alone would necessarily challenge ALL Christian doctrines that divert focus, however slight, away from the One and Only Holy God. And faith in anything less is further separation from the Divine.
With this in mind, consider the seeming shift in focus in Matthew 16:13-20. By the words of this passage, the focus seems to have shifted to Jesus Himself. To further complicate things, Jesus emphasizes the divine faith displayed by Peter in identifying Him as “… the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” It is that faith imparted by the Father, Jesus proclaims, that Peter was enabled to identify the true nature of Jesus as Messiah, as the “anointed One”.
Suddenly the Holy Father seems incidental to Jesus, but I don’t think it is fair or accurate to refer to Jesus as “incidental” to God. Still, there is an emphasis that is important to faith which must not be lost as we consider the implication of why Jesus is concerned about how He is perceived not only by the public but also by His own disciples.
So who is Jesus, and what purpose does He serve? Why the sudden shift? Or was there a shift at all? Why the sudden emphasis on Jesus and who He is to Israel, to His disciples, to the entire world? And how is the Holy Father glorified in all this?
Maybe we would do well to ask ourselves: why would Jesus want us to know that He is the Anointed One? And why is our faith in Him important to our salvation? Again, Jesus is not a co-god or a “new and improved” god; He IS God. But perhaps even more than this, He is the perfection manifest in the New Covenant, a Holy Promise that the Lord God our Father chose to make freely. We don’t have to like it, we don’t have to acknowledge it, and we don’t even have to accept it. Our rejection, however, does not diminish the Ultimate Truth.
There is something else to further understand Jesus’ role as the personification of the New Covenant. The Law of Moses demands atonement. Sin has to be called to account. So Jesus is the prophecy fulfilled, but He is also the Law perfected because the Law requires something of us that we humans are unable to bear. There is NOT ONE THING we could possibly do for ourselves to atone for the power of sin. And because the very “wages of sin is death”, our Father in Heaven could not bear this anymore than we can bear to watch our own children endure pain and suffering.
What would we do to spare our own children the unspeakable pain of sin and death? Well, we know what we would do and our own children have faith enough to believe that if someone means to do them harm, that someone will have to get through us first. This, my friends, is the essence of the New Covenant. And believing there is a God capable of this kind of love is what faith is all about; believing that we are loved. And the works of our hands coming from the abundance of our hearts is our joyful expression of this reality, this faith, so that others can comprehend it.
>>>>> What is lacking in our lives that we cannot embrace this and revel in it? What will it take to free us from the tyranny of our human minds and human hands so that we can see this with our hearts? It has to happen because that’s all there is. Jesus is the Holy Father perfected in a manifest way that we can comprehend; simple and perfect.
Jesus never shifted the focus from our Holy Father. He merely made Him clearer to us. AMEN.
James 2:14-26
Matthew 16:13-20
Faith, like love, is probably one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the Christian vernacular because of misunderstanding and misuse of the very Bible which proclaims the central role that faith necessarily plays in the life of the individual and in the life of a congregation. The reason such misunderstandings occur may be due to a conflict between the concept of faith and the manifestation of our faith; i.e., “works”. And I don’t think anyone illustrates the seeming conflict better than James when he states: “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show my faith by my works.” (2:18a,b)
The Protestant reformer Martin Luther had enough difficulty with James that he would probably have preferred the book removed from the canon so that faith might not be overwhelmed by James’ seeming overemphasis on works. While I do not pretend to know the mind of Martin Luther, it does appear on the surface that an “issue” was created rather than addressed by what I consider to be a misunderstanding and perhaps a misinterpretation of what James is saying altogether. It could well have been that one single phrase that James uses: ‘NOT by faith alone …’
We should reasonably know that there can be no conflict between faith and works, they being two sides of the same coin. Each is perfected by the other, and one cannot exist without the other, not completely. According to James, one absent the other becomes void of its essence, its truest form.
It is fair to say, however, that Luther came to his understanding of faith and its central role in our relationship with the Lord honestly. The Bible is clear: it is grace, the Lord’s unmerited favor, by which we are justified before the Lord; it cannot be earned by the works of our hands. But there seems to be an element missing in Luther’s understanding, and outright rejection, of how James’ concept of works should relate to one’s expression of faith. Righteous works are not an attempt to please the Lord; they serve as a witness to others as to the true nature of the Lord Himself. And such a witness is not restricted to such obvious acts of mercy as the Food Pantry but does include how we choose to live, work, and play.
Jesus’ entire role is centered on His witness to the true nature of the Lord God; He is showing us by word and deed what the Holy Father looks like not to the eye nor even to the mind but, rather, to the heart. And if we are true and genuine witnesses of Christ as His disciples, then we understand our role in witnessing to His nature so that by the Holy Spirit others can then see the truly Divine Image, the perfection of that Image in which we are all created.
As I have stated so often, I don’t believe that Jesus ever felt a need to “prove” Himself in any way though we might think it would have made His ministry a little easier. After all, maybe many more would have come running each time Jesus turned His hand. But then we would have been left with a lot of magic tricks rather than bona fide miracles performed within their proper context. Such cheap attempts to appease man’s eyes would defeat the entire focus of Jesus’ call to repentance by faith, a call to believe that there is something much greater before us than meets the eye. A warrior messiah would have dealt with the occupying Romans, for instance, but the true enemy would still be present and just as powerful … and just as compelling.
Jesus’ followers were presumably all Jewish. That is to say, it may be a foregone conclusion that they already believed in God. Simply believing in an existence, however, merely acknowledging the reality of a possibility does not constitute faith, and this may be the challenge that Jesus is posing to His disciples, then as well as now. In fact, such a challenge should be overwhelming on any level. Think about our own concepts of the Almighty, all powerful, God: the God Of All Creation humbling Himself to walk among His own creation rather than sit on a throne?? This concept is very nearly impossible to embrace!
It is also worth remembering that Jesus never presented Himself as an “alternate” god or a co-god. His message is a constant reminder that by the teachings of religious leaders and teachers who seem to make things up as they go along however noble the intent, the gap inherently created by false or misleading doctrine such as hand-washing as a divine tradition (Matthew 15:10-20) is ever widening. By losing a true and proper focus, we become further and further separated from the one, true, living God as we create our own gods made a little more palpable to us by our imaginations and personal desires. At that point, faith is completely lost.
Jesus always spoke of the Father as the necessary point of focus and the only One worthy of our worship. This reality alone would necessarily challenge ALL Christian doctrines that divert focus, however slight, away from the One and Only Holy God. And faith in anything less is further separation from the Divine.
With this in mind, consider the seeming shift in focus in Matthew 16:13-20. By the words of this passage, the focus seems to have shifted to Jesus Himself. To further complicate things, Jesus emphasizes the divine faith displayed by Peter in identifying Him as “… the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” It is that faith imparted by the Father, Jesus proclaims, that Peter was enabled to identify the true nature of Jesus as Messiah, as the “anointed One”.
Suddenly the Holy Father seems incidental to Jesus, but I don’t think it is fair or accurate to refer to Jesus as “incidental” to God. Still, there is an emphasis that is important to faith which must not be lost as we consider the implication of why Jesus is concerned about how He is perceived not only by the public but also by His own disciples.
So who is Jesus, and what purpose does He serve? Why the sudden shift? Or was there a shift at all? Why the sudden emphasis on Jesus and who He is to Israel, to His disciples, to the entire world? And how is the Holy Father glorified in all this?
Maybe we would do well to ask ourselves: why would Jesus want us to know that He is the Anointed One? And why is our faith in Him important to our salvation? Again, Jesus is not a co-god or a “new and improved” god; He IS God. But perhaps even more than this, He is the perfection manifest in the New Covenant, a Holy Promise that the Lord God our Father chose to make freely. We don’t have to like it, we don’t have to acknowledge it, and we don’t even have to accept it. Our rejection, however, does not diminish the Ultimate Truth.
There is something else to further understand Jesus’ role as the personification of the New Covenant. The Law of Moses demands atonement. Sin has to be called to account. So Jesus is the prophecy fulfilled, but He is also the Law perfected because the Law requires something of us that we humans are unable to bear. There is NOT ONE THING we could possibly do for ourselves to atone for the power of sin. And because the very “wages of sin is death”, our Father in Heaven could not bear this anymore than we can bear to watch our own children endure pain and suffering.
What would we do to spare our own children the unspeakable pain of sin and death? Well, we know what we would do and our own children have faith enough to believe that if someone means to do them harm, that someone will have to get through us first. This, my friends, is the essence of the New Covenant. And believing there is a God capable of this kind of love is what faith is all about; believing that we are loved. And the works of our hands coming from the abundance of our hearts is our joyful expression of this reality, this faith, so that others can comprehend it.
>>>>> What is lacking in our lives that we cannot embrace this and revel in it? What will it take to free us from the tyranny of our human minds and human hands so that we can see this with our hearts? It has to happen because that’s all there is. Jesus is the Holy Father perfected in a manifest way that we can comprehend; simple and perfect.
Jesus never shifted the focus from our Holy Father. He merely made Him clearer to us. AMEN.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Pastor came a-callin' ... or was that the Preacher?
Ok, so I might be splitting hairs on the title because the person who has shown up at the parishioner’s door is one and the same person: the pastor of the church, the spiritual leader, the parson, the preacher. No matter what title is attached, that particular person has taken time to come calling, and that same person will be at the pulpit the following Sunday delivering the sermon. There are questions, however: which is (or should be) the dominant role, and does it matter? Should more emphasis be intentionally placed on one over the other? What can a congregation reasonably expect, and what can they reasonably demand?
I have known and witnessed some exceptional pastors who were marginal, at best, as preachers, and I’ve known and witnessed some exceptional preachers who seemed to have no clue what it means to be a pastor, a shepherd of a flock, a spiritual leader of a people called forth in mission and ministry to the world. Of course there are many who are adept and gifted at handling both roles very well, and they have dynamic and thriving congregations to show for it. There are even some churches which seem to do well with an outstanding preacher who puts very little into pastoral tasks, believing that the dominant role he or she is called to fill is at the pulpit where the Word is proclaimed.
Dynamic and lively worship experiences most certainly fill pews as is evidenced by so-called mega-churches that spend extraordinary amounts of money to hire professional musicians, for instance, to lead worship, but can we reasonably question the mind and the heart of a worship leader who is there only because he or she is being paid to be there? If the church ran into financial difficulties, would that music leader or musician still show up for worship at that particular place of worship for the sake of worship itself … for free? Somehow I think not which is why I wonder what role it is that a pastor should put emphasis on. It is not reasonable to expect any human person to be all things to all people, and a church’s pastor should be no exception to this reality.
Having been appointed only this year to my first full-time appointment (I have been a part-time local pastor since 1999), I now find myself with more time to do the things I really did not have much time for when I had a full-time secular job in addition to my part-time pastorate. Subsequently I find it much easier to manage time for sermon preparation, prayer, and study with ample time left to devote to visiting parishioners. The time I have devoted to sermon preparation, however, is not necessarily planned more than it is allowed. I do not close my office door because someone walking in will be no less disruptive than a knock on a door. Still, isn’t this why I’m here, to be available?
The conflict I wonder about, however, is the seemingly rigid policy that some pastors have in which their study and sermon prep time is an absolute, no-visitors-no-calls-allowed time that will surely from time to time conflict with the congregation’s or a parishioner’s need for a “pastor” when the “preacher” will not allow himself to be disturbed.
Maybe it is not so much the role of the pastor than it is the expectations of a congregation. Does a congregation want to be fed, or does it need to be entertained? This question may seem unfair, but the reality is that for far too many it falls on the pastor to get and keep a parishioner’s attention. If this much is true, has that pastor somehow failed or did the previous pastor fail to do his job? Or is it a lazy parishioner who does not have a heart or a mind set for worship and is, instead, expecting “paid staff” to do his worshiping for him? And is this a pastoral problem, or can a preacher best deal with it?
I have no conclusions, only questions that I intend to answer as I go. I’ve gotten compliments on my sermons, and I’ve been greeted at parishioners’ homes with more surprise and suspicion than with hospitality because too many pastors in the past did not put much emphasis on “pastoring”, so maybe I have found a least a tenuous balance between the two but I also sense that the balance can be tipped either way rather easily without much notice until it is perhaps too late.
This balance surely cannot depend on a pastor’s personal preference, but it also should not be so much an answer to a congregation’s desire above their genuine need for spiritual leadership which would necessarily involve uncomfortable challenges to those most content with “navel gazing” than with social ministry, for instance. Maybe the bigger question would be how dominant a pastor/preacher should even be to his congregation.
I hope for perspective and will welcome input.
I have known and witnessed some exceptional pastors who were marginal, at best, as preachers, and I’ve known and witnessed some exceptional preachers who seemed to have no clue what it means to be a pastor, a shepherd of a flock, a spiritual leader of a people called forth in mission and ministry to the world. Of course there are many who are adept and gifted at handling both roles very well, and they have dynamic and thriving congregations to show for it. There are even some churches which seem to do well with an outstanding preacher who puts very little into pastoral tasks, believing that the dominant role he or she is called to fill is at the pulpit where the Word is proclaimed.
Dynamic and lively worship experiences most certainly fill pews as is evidenced by so-called mega-churches that spend extraordinary amounts of money to hire professional musicians, for instance, to lead worship, but can we reasonably question the mind and the heart of a worship leader who is there only because he or she is being paid to be there? If the church ran into financial difficulties, would that music leader or musician still show up for worship at that particular place of worship for the sake of worship itself … for free? Somehow I think not which is why I wonder what role it is that a pastor should put emphasis on. It is not reasonable to expect any human person to be all things to all people, and a church’s pastor should be no exception to this reality.
Having been appointed only this year to my first full-time appointment (I have been a part-time local pastor since 1999), I now find myself with more time to do the things I really did not have much time for when I had a full-time secular job in addition to my part-time pastorate. Subsequently I find it much easier to manage time for sermon preparation, prayer, and study with ample time left to devote to visiting parishioners. The time I have devoted to sermon preparation, however, is not necessarily planned more than it is allowed. I do not close my office door because someone walking in will be no less disruptive than a knock on a door. Still, isn’t this why I’m here, to be available?
The conflict I wonder about, however, is the seemingly rigid policy that some pastors have in which their study and sermon prep time is an absolute, no-visitors-no-calls-allowed time that will surely from time to time conflict with the congregation’s or a parishioner’s need for a “pastor” when the “preacher” will not allow himself to be disturbed.
Maybe it is not so much the role of the pastor than it is the expectations of a congregation. Does a congregation want to be fed, or does it need to be entertained? This question may seem unfair, but the reality is that for far too many it falls on the pastor to get and keep a parishioner’s attention. If this much is true, has that pastor somehow failed or did the previous pastor fail to do his job? Or is it a lazy parishioner who does not have a heart or a mind set for worship and is, instead, expecting “paid staff” to do his worshiping for him? And is this a pastoral problem, or can a preacher best deal with it?
I have no conclusions, only questions that I intend to answer as I go. I’ve gotten compliments on my sermons, and I’ve been greeted at parishioners’ homes with more surprise and suspicion than with hospitality because too many pastors in the past did not put much emphasis on “pastoring”, so maybe I have found a least a tenuous balance between the two but I also sense that the balance can be tipped either way rather easily without much notice until it is perhaps too late.
This balance surely cannot depend on a pastor’s personal preference, but it also should not be so much an answer to a congregation’s desire above their genuine need for spiritual leadership which would necessarily involve uncomfortable challenges to those most content with “navel gazing” than with social ministry, for instance. Maybe the bigger question would be how dominant a pastor/preacher should even be to his congregation.
I hope for perspective and will welcome input.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Irony of Public Policy
Everyone is out for a bargain. Stores advertise “annual” close-out sales at least four times a year, and many other stores seem to be on the verge of losing their leases, so “everything must go”. We consumers are eager to save a few bucks on things we need and even on some things we don’t need but if we are offered these things at “rock bottom prices”, we show up for these “specially marked down prices”, some of which “will not be seen again”. So many slogans are designed to get our attention and offer to lead us to the Promised Land as we are also led to believe that the store is willing to take a loss just to move merchandise, so we are keen on those bargains that just seem to scream at us. There is nothing, however, that beats a two-for-one sale.
We like two-fers. And in Arkansas it seems that our state government has figured out that if they are going to sell a bad bill of goods, they need only to convince us that we are getting a sweet deal. And nothing – I mean NOTHING – is sweeter than getting two-for-the-price-of-one.
Our own lieutenant governor is trying to convince us that college scholarships and instant wealth are just around the corner; all we have to be willing to do is vote for his lottery proposal. Arkansas is also in need of a medical trauma system, so Rep. Gene Shelby, D-Hot Springs proposes to finance it with an additional cigarette tax, the same tax proposal that failed to even make it out of committee in 2007. There is something sinister going on with these two proposals, and the reasoning for either makes no sense no matter how each is proposed because what may appear to be working in tandem with another is completely unrelated to the first part.
These are four distinctly separate issues being floated about, but our state’s politicians would have us believe that each is somehow connected; i.e., the lottery will finance scholarships, and the additional cigarette tax will fund a state-wide trauma system. There are faulty premises on each that do not consider the tenuous financing that is coupled. For instance, the additional tax (currently at .59) of .50 on cigarettes will raise an additional $70 million to $75 million annual on a system that, according to estimates, will require approximately $25 million. Then the state director of the Arkansas Department of Health says the tax is a good idea to encourage people to give up cigarettes. Surely the irony is apparent.
So what happens if the director’s wish that everyone quits smoking comes true? The revenue source is endangered; then what? One thing is accomplished at the risk of another, and surely the trauma system is a good idea, at least on the surface. So if the state legislature was unable to “find” funding for the much-needed trauma system last time around (in the middle of a colossal revenue surplus, no less), how is reaching for a shaky funding source, perhaps ideally designed to burn itself out, going to make this trauma system a sustained reality? And why should only one segment of the tax-paying public be responsible for a system whose sole source of revenue is unrelated to trauma and will ultimately benefit everyone? If a trauma system is worth having at all, it is worth paying for with a self-sustaining source of revenue. These are two separate issues, yet one irony.
Another irony must acknowledge statistics which suggest that it is generally low-income, uneducated citizens who spend the most on lottery tickets in Arkansas’ neighboring states. The Arkansas lottery proposal does not seek to fund education, per se, but it does propose to make available college scholarship funds so that the poor and uneducated will have an opportunity to change or enhance their social standing. As a result of the poor and uneducated funding their own scholarships, presumably to end their own poverty and ignorance, suddenly everyone is no longer poor or ignorant. They have ideally gained knowledge and wisdom and have come to the conclusion that buying a lottery ticket as a pretense to anything other than selfish gain (at a billion-to-one odds, no less) is nothing more than a tax on silliness, wishful thinking, greed, or a combination of all.
If there is a legitimate need for college scholarships in Arkansas that will offset those who were unable to go to school on grants, loans, and other state and privately sponsored scholarships, then I would suggest that the people of Arkansas be shown those who were unable to attend a state university due to a lack of money. And I would strongly suggest that the people of Arkansas be able to see that otherwise QUALIFIED students were somehow denied the opportunity. How many young people who made the grades in high school were unable to go to college due to a lack of funds? How many did not go because they did not pursue every single avenue of higher education funding? How much scholarship money around the state, public and private, went unclaimed because deserving students did not know the funds existed? My guess is that the number of deserving, qualified students who did not know about the many funding alternatives and did not go to school is not as high as Bill Halter’s proposal might try to suggest.
There is money available for higher education, but it will not be served on a dinner plate and laid before the potential student. It has to be sought, it has to be applied for, it has to be earned (work-study programs), and some must be paid back (student loans), but money is there. If someone has a genuine desire to attend college, the means to do so is already available now without a lottery. Mr. Halter tells us that his proposal will raise $100 million dollars for college scholarships (that number is disputed by other sources). My question is: are we coming up $100 million dollars short of what is currently needed?
Let us at least be honest with ourselves and with one another as we demand full disclosure from the pro-lottery people. A lottery is not “needed” to help educate Arkansans. A lottery is a lottery. It is a game, a game of chance that must not be promoted or used as a means to any legitimate end; it should be sold just as it is. It is a game, period. It is, in my humble opinion, a monumentally bad idea on so many levels, but being sold as an answer to what may or may not be a legitimate need or as a source of state revenue is an insult to the intelligence of voters. And it is made even more so by pretending to cover some shortage when Arkansas has been running budget surpluses for the past several years because of rather aggressive tax policies. How much more surplus needs to be accumulated before we realize that the only thing this state is short of right now is a good idea?
We like two-fers. And in Arkansas it seems that our state government has figured out that if they are going to sell a bad bill of goods, they need only to convince us that we are getting a sweet deal. And nothing – I mean NOTHING – is sweeter than getting two-for-the-price-of-one.
Our own lieutenant governor is trying to convince us that college scholarships and instant wealth are just around the corner; all we have to be willing to do is vote for his lottery proposal. Arkansas is also in need of a medical trauma system, so Rep. Gene Shelby, D-Hot Springs proposes to finance it with an additional cigarette tax, the same tax proposal that failed to even make it out of committee in 2007. There is something sinister going on with these two proposals, and the reasoning for either makes no sense no matter how each is proposed because what may appear to be working in tandem with another is completely unrelated to the first part.
These are four distinctly separate issues being floated about, but our state’s politicians would have us believe that each is somehow connected; i.e., the lottery will finance scholarships, and the additional cigarette tax will fund a state-wide trauma system. There are faulty premises on each that do not consider the tenuous financing that is coupled. For instance, the additional tax (currently at .59) of .50 on cigarettes will raise an additional $70 million to $75 million annual on a system that, according to estimates, will require approximately $25 million. Then the state director of the Arkansas Department of Health says the tax is a good idea to encourage people to give up cigarettes. Surely the irony is apparent.
So what happens if the director’s wish that everyone quits smoking comes true? The revenue source is endangered; then what? One thing is accomplished at the risk of another, and surely the trauma system is a good idea, at least on the surface. So if the state legislature was unable to “find” funding for the much-needed trauma system last time around (in the middle of a colossal revenue surplus, no less), how is reaching for a shaky funding source, perhaps ideally designed to burn itself out, going to make this trauma system a sustained reality? And why should only one segment of the tax-paying public be responsible for a system whose sole source of revenue is unrelated to trauma and will ultimately benefit everyone? If a trauma system is worth having at all, it is worth paying for with a self-sustaining source of revenue. These are two separate issues, yet one irony.
Another irony must acknowledge statistics which suggest that it is generally low-income, uneducated citizens who spend the most on lottery tickets in Arkansas’ neighboring states. The Arkansas lottery proposal does not seek to fund education, per se, but it does propose to make available college scholarship funds so that the poor and uneducated will have an opportunity to change or enhance their social standing. As a result of the poor and uneducated funding their own scholarships, presumably to end their own poverty and ignorance, suddenly everyone is no longer poor or ignorant. They have ideally gained knowledge and wisdom and have come to the conclusion that buying a lottery ticket as a pretense to anything other than selfish gain (at a billion-to-one odds, no less) is nothing more than a tax on silliness, wishful thinking, greed, or a combination of all.
If there is a legitimate need for college scholarships in Arkansas that will offset those who were unable to go to school on grants, loans, and other state and privately sponsored scholarships, then I would suggest that the people of Arkansas be shown those who were unable to attend a state university due to a lack of money. And I would strongly suggest that the people of Arkansas be able to see that otherwise QUALIFIED students were somehow denied the opportunity. How many young people who made the grades in high school were unable to go to college due to a lack of funds? How many did not go because they did not pursue every single avenue of higher education funding? How much scholarship money around the state, public and private, went unclaimed because deserving students did not know the funds existed? My guess is that the number of deserving, qualified students who did not know about the many funding alternatives and did not go to school is not as high as Bill Halter’s proposal might try to suggest.
There is money available for higher education, but it will not be served on a dinner plate and laid before the potential student. It has to be sought, it has to be applied for, it has to be earned (work-study programs), and some must be paid back (student loans), but money is there. If someone has a genuine desire to attend college, the means to do so is already available now without a lottery. Mr. Halter tells us that his proposal will raise $100 million dollars for college scholarships (that number is disputed by other sources). My question is: are we coming up $100 million dollars short of what is currently needed?
Let us at least be honest with ourselves and with one another as we demand full disclosure from the pro-lottery people. A lottery is not “needed” to help educate Arkansans. A lottery is a lottery. It is a game, a game of chance that must not be promoted or used as a means to any legitimate end; it should be sold just as it is. It is a game, period. It is, in my humble opinion, a monumentally bad idea on so many levels, but being sold as an answer to what may or may not be a legitimate need or as a source of state revenue is an insult to the intelligence of voters. And it is made even more so by pretending to cover some shortage when Arkansas has been running budget surpluses for the past several years because of rather aggressive tax policies. How much more surplus needs to be accumulated before we realize that the only thing this state is short of right now is a good idea?
Forgive ME while I consider the other ...
Matthew 18:21-35
I once had a parishioner declare to me that if she heard one more sermon about “forgiveness”, she just could not be held responsible for what she may do next!
I don’t think the issue of “forgiveness” itself was the problem my beloved parishioner was dealing with. Instead, it had become a rather redundant “issue” that had been beaten into the ground. For her, it was time to move on to other things. After all, she said, it’s a pretty big Bible that covers a lot of ground. Surely we don’t have to repeat ourselves in order to be faithful to the Lord.
Maybe not but faithfulness is directly related to the task at hand and if our mission in faithfulness to the Lord is to tell His story and proclaim the Good News, forgiveness is itself the central theme of our faith and must surely be the greatest hope for a new convert as well as for those still seeking some meaning to their existence: how to embrace this God who would do such a thing. It is the greatest of all mysteries, and without it the life of Christ’s Holy Church is reduced to nothing more than a social club.
Still, I can see where my beloved parishioner was having some difficulty with feeling as if forgiveness were being forced upon her because there is an element involved that we don’t often talk about: our sense of justice. Justice demands that a wrong be made right and that some sort of penalty be invoked so as to discourage future acts of injustice.
We Americans are nothing if not a people of justice and while we might say the same thing about Christians, the truth is we Christians – by virtue of the Lord’s mighty act of forgiveness – have been excused from paying the price for our sins, the price having already been paid IN FULL. True justice would demand that we would have suffered the penalty; instead, the penalty was paid in our stead – and this is incomprehensible to many.
Here is something else to consider. We know when we’ve done wrong and we reasonably know that this wrong must be made right; WE KNOW THIS. But we don’t want to pay a penalty, do we? We would rather right a wrong in our own time and according to our own desires. Don’t we often remind ourselves that if we do not repent of such behavior that is not pleasing to the Lord, we will sooner or later answer for it?
However, if someone does US a wrong, then we want them to pay and pay dearly!! We are not typically as forgiving of them as we are of ourselves. And I think it must be the lack of genuine perspective, a perspective that is absent a genuine experience of having suffered in a very real way for our sins.
Maybe it is not possible for us. Maybe it is that there will always linger just beneath the surface the reality that we had been wronged. There is another reality, however, that we must consider and ultimately come to embrace, according to Kenneth J. Collins, professor of Wesley Studies at Asbury in Wilmore, KY. He wrote recently in Good News magazine: “The genius of the Christian faith is that it sees evil for what it is and not as an illusion as in some other religions. It then triumphs over this darkness and transcends it through its central fact of loving forgiveness.”
In other words, we acknowledge the reality what has been done to us while we also acknowledge the humanity of the person or persons who had wronged us. We give them the same break we give ourselves. We acknowledge the possibility that there were extenuating circumstances that we may never be aware of. Even as we acknowledge such realities we must also be aware that whether we choose to avenge ourselves or simply move on, the certain reality will never change. We cannot “undo” what has been done. What we can do is adjust our attitude and refocus our energy while recognizing that such negative energy and hatefulness will harm no one but ourselves. Our “enemy” may never know or care how we once felt, so what’s it to him if we choose to move along?
In the midst of the most intense suffering imaginable, Jesus prayed: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” This was not only a sincere prayer from One fully possessed of true and genuine godly love; it was also a lesson from which we are called not only to learn but to live. The central theme of our faith is, indeed, forgiveness and forgiveness is central to life eternal. To carry any sort of grudge or resentment against someone is to suffer a slow and painful death. To forgive is to embrace divine life. To truly live is to forgive as we have been forgiven.
I once had a parishioner declare to me that if she heard one more sermon about “forgiveness”, she just could not be held responsible for what she may do next!
I don’t think the issue of “forgiveness” itself was the problem my beloved parishioner was dealing with. Instead, it had become a rather redundant “issue” that had been beaten into the ground. For her, it was time to move on to other things. After all, she said, it’s a pretty big Bible that covers a lot of ground. Surely we don’t have to repeat ourselves in order to be faithful to the Lord.
Maybe not but faithfulness is directly related to the task at hand and if our mission in faithfulness to the Lord is to tell His story and proclaim the Good News, forgiveness is itself the central theme of our faith and must surely be the greatest hope for a new convert as well as for those still seeking some meaning to their existence: how to embrace this God who would do such a thing. It is the greatest of all mysteries, and without it the life of Christ’s Holy Church is reduced to nothing more than a social club.
Still, I can see where my beloved parishioner was having some difficulty with feeling as if forgiveness were being forced upon her because there is an element involved that we don’t often talk about: our sense of justice. Justice demands that a wrong be made right and that some sort of penalty be invoked so as to discourage future acts of injustice.
We Americans are nothing if not a people of justice and while we might say the same thing about Christians, the truth is we Christians – by virtue of the Lord’s mighty act of forgiveness – have been excused from paying the price for our sins, the price having already been paid IN FULL. True justice would demand that we would have suffered the penalty; instead, the penalty was paid in our stead – and this is incomprehensible to many.
Here is something else to consider. We know when we’ve done wrong and we reasonably know that this wrong must be made right; WE KNOW THIS. But we don’t want to pay a penalty, do we? We would rather right a wrong in our own time and according to our own desires. Don’t we often remind ourselves that if we do not repent of such behavior that is not pleasing to the Lord, we will sooner or later answer for it?
However, if someone does US a wrong, then we want them to pay and pay dearly!! We are not typically as forgiving of them as we are of ourselves. And I think it must be the lack of genuine perspective, a perspective that is absent a genuine experience of having suffered in a very real way for our sins.
Maybe it is not possible for us. Maybe it is that there will always linger just beneath the surface the reality that we had been wronged. There is another reality, however, that we must consider and ultimately come to embrace, according to Kenneth J. Collins, professor of Wesley Studies at Asbury in Wilmore, KY. He wrote recently in Good News magazine: “The genius of the Christian faith is that it sees evil for what it is and not as an illusion as in some other religions. It then triumphs over this darkness and transcends it through its central fact of loving forgiveness.”
In other words, we acknowledge the reality what has been done to us while we also acknowledge the humanity of the person or persons who had wronged us. We give them the same break we give ourselves. We acknowledge the possibility that there were extenuating circumstances that we may never be aware of. Even as we acknowledge such realities we must also be aware that whether we choose to avenge ourselves or simply move on, the certain reality will never change. We cannot “undo” what has been done. What we can do is adjust our attitude and refocus our energy while recognizing that such negative energy and hatefulness will harm no one but ourselves. Our “enemy” may never know or care how we once felt, so what’s it to him if we choose to move along?
In the midst of the most intense suffering imaginable, Jesus prayed: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” This was not only a sincere prayer from One fully possessed of true and genuine godly love; it was also a lesson from which we are called not only to learn but to live. The central theme of our faith is, indeed, forgiveness and forgiveness is central to life eternal. To carry any sort of grudge or resentment against someone is to suffer a slow and painful death. To forgive is to embrace divine life. To truly live is to forgive as we have been forgiven.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Divine Stumbling Block
1 Kings 19:9-18
Romans 10:1-15
Matthew 14:22-33
The late comedian Dean Martin was once quoted as having said, “Show me a man who has no fear, and I will show you a man who gets beat up a lot.” It is often said that the greatest motivator OR stumbling block for any person is fear. Fear of risk, for example, marks the difference between entrepreneurs and those who work for them. Take away those fearless dare-devils and stunt actors in movies, and what’s left? Chick flicks.
To be fair, however, it is important to understand that fear and cowardice are not necessarily synonymous. A lot of people are alive today because “informed fear” (aka, healthy respect for danger!) borne of experience advised their decision-making process at one point or another. Many a combat veteran will testify that while fear can paralyze, it can also motivate one to make more reasonable decisions regarding, for instance, when to advance and when to hold or withdraw. For many, the absolute absence of fear is nothing more than evidence of an absolute lack of active brain cells!
We may admire, on a particular level, the courage of someone who will boldly proclaim, “Hold my beer and watch this”, but we will never take them seriously beyond their capacity to entertain us. Besides, I’m not sure this can even fall into a category that might define fear or courage, but it is interesting to see sometimes how differently we can act when we are under certain influences and not necessarily drugs or alcohol, but of other things which can inform us, embolden us, or even trip us up.
It is fear of rejection that can keep many of us from opportunities we cannot define and will never know because we stepped backward instead of forward when opportunities presented themselves. It is perhaps this fear that may at least partly account for the decline in American church membership. In a recent UMNS story about declining membership in UM churches, Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards who is director of worship resources for the UM Board of Discipleship says that while the UM Church should be working to attract “seekers”, we should also be aware that many spiritually inclined people are wary of religious institutions and may resent the data which causes churches to target them as potential “recruits”.
"Every time we do that, we miss the point," Burton-Edwards said. "Instead of adjusting our message to get those people with us, we should be working to be in mission with people, whoever they are, wherever they are." I would also add: regardless of their inclinations, and without judgment or prejudice.
Burton-Edwards said the study's data is useful but shouldn't be the focus in measuring the church's vitality. It takes more than numbers, he said, to address the core question of whether the church is following Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
"We've got the paradigm turned around. … It's not about getting people inside of the church; it's about getting Christians out," he said. "It's not how many people are in our organization, but what level of spiritual impression people are experiencing. How are they being imprinted with the likeness of Jesus Christ? And what is the impact crater around them as a result?" UMNS, Marta Aldrich, 29 Feb 2008
Peter may have had the right idea when he stepped out of the boat (Matthew 14:22-33), but his motive seemed highly questionable. It did not seem to be a matter of faith that compelled Peter to step out of the boat and I don’t think Jesus felt any real need to “prove” Himself, but He may well have been trying to make a point. Before the point of losing one’s focus and “sinking”, however, is the point of motive and what we hope to achieve in stepping out of our own boats.
Defining that motive, that sense of purpose, may be an important step in overcoming the common stumbling block – the fear - that, at the very least, can slow us down as we perhaps weigh the outcome against the potential risk. At most, perhaps, this fear can cause us to stop altogether. In the deep recesses of our being, we know that sharing the Good News of the New Covenant is our privilege, but our fear – rational or not – will help us to justify our choice to stay in the boat. Thus an opportunity lost is a blessing never realized.
We can admire and applaud Peter for being willing to step out as he did but can we follow this as an example of faith, or is there something more to this story than meets the eye? Could Peter have fallen into that category of those who say, “Here, hold my beer and watch this?” Peter was not trusting Jesus more than he was testing Him even if he was trying to affirm Jesus’ identity. He may well have been also trying to “show” the others in the boat something. In spite of his failure and ultimate fear, however, notice that he was still lifted up and rescued! Surely this is something we can relate to!
I want to add a minor twist to this Gospel passage in light of Paul’s words to the Romans. Both Martin Luther and John Wesley cited Romans in having been freed from the notion that one must live and work up to a certain standard in order to please the Lord God, which is to say that striving toward perfection in obedience, while an admirable goal and a worthwhile endeavor, may actually be the greatest stumbling block of all in the development of the faith we need to get us through difficult challenges. We rely on our righteous performance in an effort to please the Lord, thus the potential is there that faith will play too minor a role.
The Bible says that “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6
With this in mind, then, consider what Paul is saying in verse 3 (Romans 10): “…being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they have not submitted to God’s righteousness.”
I know that sometimes we can split hairs over the perceived contrast between faith and works in trying to find our niche on Christ’s path in our faith journey, but we must always be mindful that the right – and righteous - path is, indeed, Christ’s path and not our own. I think maybe what Paul is saying is that the focus of our works must necessarily be evaluated so that we can be confident that these works, whatever they may be, are acts of gratitude rather than self-proclaimed acts of righteousness. In other words, if we are seeking to please the Lord God by the works of our hands in some misguided effort to “score points”, we have missed the boat altogether! We have vainly sought to “establish [our] own righteousness”.
Socially and for the sake of the local church, the great tragedy in this is that once we have decided for ourselves how we must behave, we then make demands and judgments and then IMPOSE sometimes unreasonable expectations – stumbling blocks - on others who do not follow OUR footsteps along OUR path even if and when we use the Bible as our reference point. We have made a proclamation of OUR OWN righteousness and our place as “proper” examples and soon will demand that others follow not Christ but us. We may be “technically” correct in our endeavors and our beliefs but, according to Paul, we are spiritually in the wrong.
Perhaps this was the essence of Peter’s failure. It is a fine line between Peter’s lack of faith and his desire to believe what he was seeing. The gift Peter received was that first step upon the water in which he was able to stand, but then he turned to his own devices – his own ability to believe – and lost sight of his faith which was the only thing there could possibly have been to sustain him.
It was the righteousness of Christ Himself that saved Peter, not Peter’s. Would we, like Peter, choose to TEST the Lord in our doubts and fears as we embark on our own efforts, or shall we acknowledge that it is Christ ALONE who keeps us from sinking in the first place and that our own efforts and acts are those of gratitude and not obligation?
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Romans 10:1-15
Matthew 14:22-33
The late comedian Dean Martin was once quoted as having said, “Show me a man who has no fear, and I will show you a man who gets beat up a lot.” It is often said that the greatest motivator OR stumbling block for any person is fear. Fear of risk, for example, marks the difference between entrepreneurs and those who work for them. Take away those fearless dare-devils and stunt actors in movies, and what’s left? Chick flicks.
To be fair, however, it is important to understand that fear and cowardice are not necessarily synonymous. A lot of people are alive today because “informed fear” (aka, healthy respect for danger!) borne of experience advised their decision-making process at one point or another. Many a combat veteran will testify that while fear can paralyze, it can also motivate one to make more reasonable decisions regarding, for instance, when to advance and when to hold or withdraw. For many, the absolute absence of fear is nothing more than evidence of an absolute lack of active brain cells!
We may admire, on a particular level, the courage of someone who will boldly proclaim, “Hold my beer and watch this”, but we will never take them seriously beyond their capacity to entertain us. Besides, I’m not sure this can even fall into a category that might define fear or courage, but it is interesting to see sometimes how differently we can act when we are under certain influences and not necessarily drugs or alcohol, but of other things which can inform us, embolden us, or even trip us up.
It is fear of rejection that can keep many of us from opportunities we cannot define and will never know because we stepped backward instead of forward when opportunities presented themselves. It is perhaps this fear that may at least partly account for the decline in American church membership. In a recent UMNS story about declining membership in UM churches, Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards who is director of worship resources for the UM Board of Discipleship says that while the UM Church should be working to attract “seekers”, we should also be aware that many spiritually inclined people are wary of religious institutions and may resent the data which causes churches to target them as potential “recruits”.
"Every time we do that, we miss the point," Burton-Edwards said. "Instead of adjusting our message to get those people with us, we should be working to be in mission with people, whoever they are, wherever they are." I would also add: regardless of their inclinations, and without judgment or prejudice.
Burton-Edwards said the study's data is useful but shouldn't be the focus in measuring the church's vitality. It takes more than numbers, he said, to address the core question of whether the church is following Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
"We've got the paradigm turned around. … It's not about getting people inside of the church; it's about getting Christians out," he said. "It's not how many people are in our organization, but what level of spiritual impression people are experiencing. How are they being imprinted with the likeness of Jesus Christ? And what is the impact crater around them as a result?" UMNS, Marta Aldrich, 29 Feb 2008
Peter may have had the right idea when he stepped out of the boat (Matthew 14:22-33), but his motive seemed highly questionable. It did not seem to be a matter of faith that compelled Peter to step out of the boat and I don’t think Jesus felt any real need to “prove” Himself, but He may well have been trying to make a point. Before the point of losing one’s focus and “sinking”, however, is the point of motive and what we hope to achieve in stepping out of our own boats.
Defining that motive, that sense of purpose, may be an important step in overcoming the common stumbling block – the fear - that, at the very least, can slow us down as we perhaps weigh the outcome against the potential risk. At most, perhaps, this fear can cause us to stop altogether. In the deep recesses of our being, we know that sharing the Good News of the New Covenant is our privilege, but our fear – rational or not – will help us to justify our choice to stay in the boat. Thus an opportunity lost is a blessing never realized.
We can admire and applaud Peter for being willing to step out as he did but can we follow this as an example of faith, or is there something more to this story than meets the eye? Could Peter have fallen into that category of those who say, “Here, hold my beer and watch this?” Peter was not trusting Jesus more than he was testing Him even if he was trying to affirm Jesus’ identity. He may well have been also trying to “show” the others in the boat something. In spite of his failure and ultimate fear, however, notice that he was still lifted up and rescued! Surely this is something we can relate to!
I want to add a minor twist to this Gospel passage in light of Paul’s words to the Romans. Both Martin Luther and John Wesley cited Romans in having been freed from the notion that one must live and work up to a certain standard in order to please the Lord God, which is to say that striving toward perfection in obedience, while an admirable goal and a worthwhile endeavor, may actually be the greatest stumbling block of all in the development of the faith we need to get us through difficult challenges. We rely on our righteous performance in an effort to please the Lord, thus the potential is there that faith will play too minor a role.
The Bible says that “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6
With this in mind, then, consider what Paul is saying in verse 3 (Romans 10): “…being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they have not submitted to God’s righteousness.”
I know that sometimes we can split hairs over the perceived contrast between faith and works in trying to find our niche on Christ’s path in our faith journey, but we must always be mindful that the right – and righteous - path is, indeed, Christ’s path and not our own. I think maybe what Paul is saying is that the focus of our works must necessarily be evaluated so that we can be confident that these works, whatever they may be, are acts of gratitude rather than self-proclaimed acts of righteousness. In other words, if we are seeking to please the Lord God by the works of our hands in some misguided effort to “score points”, we have missed the boat altogether! We have vainly sought to “establish [our] own righteousness”.
Socially and for the sake of the local church, the great tragedy in this is that once we have decided for ourselves how we must behave, we then make demands and judgments and then IMPOSE sometimes unreasonable expectations – stumbling blocks - on others who do not follow OUR footsteps along OUR path even if and when we use the Bible as our reference point. We have made a proclamation of OUR OWN righteousness and our place as “proper” examples and soon will demand that others follow not Christ but us. We may be “technically” correct in our endeavors and our beliefs but, according to Paul, we are spiritually in the wrong.
Perhaps this was the essence of Peter’s failure. It is a fine line between Peter’s lack of faith and his desire to believe what he was seeing. The gift Peter received was that first step upon the water in which he was able to stand, but then he turned to his own devices – his own ability to believe – and lost sight of his faith which was the only thing there could possibly have been to sustain him.
It was the righteousness of Christ Himself that saved Peter, not Peter’s. Would we, like Peter, choose to TEST the Lord in our doubts and fears as we embark on our own efforts, or shall we acknowledge that it is Christ ALONE who keeps us from sinking in the first place and that our own efforts and acts are those of gratitude and not obligation?
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Monday, August 04, 2008
The Inevitable Struggle
Genesis 32:22-31
Romans 9:1-5
Matthew 14:13-21
Struggle is imminent. There is no way to avoid it. Even making an effort to avoid struggle is itself a struggle! The essence of any struggle, however, is the personal growth that can come just as with any learning experience. Regardless of the nature of the struggle, we can come away with a broader perspective even if we firmly stood our ground. Surely we can at least appreciate the fact that we cannot possibly know everything there is to know, especially from the perspective of someone else.
I found myself in the middle of a couple of struggles this week and, like Jacob in Genesis 32:22-31, I also want to come away with a blessing. Yet I must prepare myself for the possibility that I may come away from it all with ONLY a limp … and that’s if I’m lucky! It’s ok, though, because if it were not for these particular two items, it would have been two others, maybe three. As I stated, struggle is unavoidable most especially for the faithful.
The first item was simply an issue of time; there seems to never be enough of it to do everything that we would like to do, let alone everything we must do. When time is compressed – as it always seems to be - then it becomes necessary to prioritize. The problem with this is that while I may have juggled a few things in a particular order I thought best, it may soon be brought to my attention that maybe I should have done something a little differently, maybe arranged my priorities in another way. I did the best I could, but only time will tell the true outcome. Time, however, is an issue that will never go away.
The second item involved the sermon. I thought I was done until I received an e-mail from the Arkansas Conference reminding me that August 3 is “Anti-Lottery Sunday”. I admit that the “reminder” itself suggested that at some point I should have already been aware of the significance of this particular Sunday, but I just don’t recall the first notice. This is not to say that I support the lottery initiative. I don’t. I think it is a bad idea for probably as many reasons as some of you, perhaps many of you, may think it is a good idea. Whether the lottery itself is good or bad, however, is not the point that I hope to make. Not today, anyway.
There is my political self that is ideologically Republican, almost libertarian. That is to say, I think that the less our government is involved in our lives, the better. We can make our own mistakes, thank you very much, or we can enjoy our own successes. Even within the highest ideals of this freedom, we must always be mindful of those who are marginalized by society through no fault of their own either by disability or certain injustices which do still exist whether we like it or not.
With this freedom, then, comes duty and responsibility. We must recognize that our freedom to do as we choose ceases to exist when we infringe upon the legitimate rights of others. Cigarette smoking is a prime example. Smokers have every right to light up but when in the course of exercising that right the clean air is poisoned, the air that non-smokers cannot avoid such as in restaurants or other common-area public places, the right to smoke no longer exists even in the absence of state or city smoking prohibitions. At least, this is my opinion primarily as a matter of common, social, and public courtesy. When our rights become burdensome to others, we then have the duty or responsibility to make other choices. The struggle exists in doing what we OUGHT to do vs. doing what we would LIKE to do. This is, in our society and in our culture, the constant challenge of the faithful. My libertarian self says you have the right to buy lottery tickets when you like and smoke where you like until kingdom come. It is not the government’s business – or mine.
Then there is my religion self, a United Methodist with the honor and privilege of serving as a pastor, a minister – LIKE EVERY BELIEVER - of the entirely social Gospel of Christ, and one who believes that the Church as a whole has remained silent for too long about social issues but is now trying to find its voice and speak with clarity and with moral authority regarding the Church’s social obligations within the context of the Gospel. Admirable, but some elements of the Church have also found themselves advocating for “choice” and “freedom” pertaining to certain social issues and have, in my opinion, jeopardized the moral authority of the Church as a whole by using flawed doctrinal or theological reasoning. My religion self says that the Church must use its voice to speak against the lottery but, perhaps more importantly, help others to understand the nature of our opposition – but, of course, within the boundaries of existing law. Only in America, huh???
So what else is new? Does the past silence of the church require that we remain silent from now on and just let things go as society allows or demands, regardless of the risk potential? Does the fact that most of us probably can be accurately labeled “hypocrite” mean that we should just stop the charade and quit trying? No and No. The struggle exists uniquely in our society because we understand our religion self that is probably constantly struggling with our social and public policy self, our political alter-ego. Lotteries, casino gambling, and abortion spring to mind as issues we may struggle with, but what may not be clear is what we hope to come away from the struggle with, what we hope to accomplish. Can we, or should we even try to, protect people from themselves - even if in the name of Christ?
Jacob’s struggle in Genesis 32 seems to come out of nowhere, yet it is the story of a struggle endured by a man of faith who is moving “forward”, enroute to his destination in Canaan, the Promised Land. But who is this “man” who seems to come from nowhere and is not only not identified but who also refuses to identify himself when asked? And what might the story of this particular struggle suggest for we who continue to struggle on our own journeys as we face that which evokes fear and uncertainty especially when we do what we think is the proper thing but which will face almost certain opposition?
Some schools of thought have suggested that the “man” against whom Jacob wrestled was perhaps a demon or a Canaanite god intent on keeping Jacob from going any further, essentially trying to keep him from entering into Canaan. This theory makes sense in a couple of points: Jacob’s ability to overcome even with injury, and the seeming need of "the man" to avoid the light of day. There are problems with this theory, of course, not least of which are Jacob’s determination to receive a “blessing” directly from this “man” and Jacob’s proclamation in verse 30 in naming the place “Peniel” as he attributes the struggle to a direct encounter with the Lord and has lived to tell it.
I think most scholars agree, however, that “the man” whom Jacob encountered was an angel of the Lord, but it still remains unclear as to why this encounter took place exclusively for Jacob and why this encounter had to end before the sun came up. The timing of the sunrise, however, may only be incidental to chapter 33 which picks up right from this encounter: Jacob looks up and sees Esau coming with 400 men in tow. This impending encounter was one that Jacob was NOT looking forward to!
Maybe the struggle Jacob encounters could more reasonably be attributed to his previous plea to the Lord in chapter 32. Remember that Jacob is very afraid of meeting up with Esau because of the stunt he pulled in chapter 27 when he “tricked” his father Isaac into bestowing the blessing to Jacob that should have rightfully gone to the older brother, Esau, in which it is also written: “So Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau said in his heart, ‘The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then I will kill my brother Jacob'.”
If Jacob was aware of this searing hatred, and he most certainly was, then he had every right and reason to be afraid and flee as he did. I wonder, however, if the struggle we encounter daily is the same struggle between Jacob’s religion self that should have been comforted by his earlier prayer in which he reminded even himself that that the Lord had already told him, “I will surely treat you well …”, and Jacob’s more worldly, political self which recognized Esau’s right to be upset and reason to seek vengeance.
The struggle may well be reduced to nothing more than a matter of faith in believing in, and resting on, the promises of the Lord God rather than turning to our own devices to manipulate an outcome more favorable to self than to the glory of the Lord God. The struggle is imminent, I think, perhaps because we have become too worldly over time and, rather than resist the worldly influences, we have probably resisted the religion.
The good news is that as long as a sense of struggle exists, there is hope. It could well mean that we are attempting to find a place for everything and keep everything in its proper perspective. The spiritual reality is that we cannot segregate ourselves by our worldly inclinations and our spiritual being, they being two parts of the same whole.
Within this struggle, however, we must finally and completely come to understand that it is the SPIRITUAL part of ourselves that will endure long after everything worldly has faded away. It must necessarily be, then, that we shift our focus on worldly things with our spiritual perspective, to be informed by the social Gospel of Christ so that the struggle will finally and completely give way to the will of the Lord God our Father. To His Glory … now and forever. AMEN.
Romans 9:1-5
Matthew 14:13-21
Struggle is imminent. There is no way to avoid it. Even making an effort to avoid struggle is itself a struggle! The essence of any struggle, however, is the personal growth that can come just as with any learning experience. Regardless of the nature of the struggle, we can come away with a broader perspective even if we firmly stood our ground. Surely we can at least appreciate the fact that we cannot possibly know everything there is to know, especially from the perspective of someone else.
I found myself in the middle of a couple of struggles this week and, like Jacob in Genesis 32:22-31, I also want to come away with a blessing. Yet I must prepare myself for the possibility that I may come away from it all with ONLY a limp … and that’s if I’m lucky! It’s ok, though, because if it were not for these particular two items, it would have been two others, maybe three. As I stated, struggle is unavoidable most especially for the faithful.
The first item was simply an issue of time; there seems to never be enough of it to do everything that we would like to do, let alone everything we must do. When time is compressed – as it always seems to be - then it becomes necessary to prioritize. The problem with this is that while I may have juggled a few things in a particular order I thought best, it may soon be brought to my attention that maybe I should have done something a little differently, maybe arranged my priorities in another way. I did the best I could, but only time will tell the true outcome. Time, however, is an issue that will never go away.
The second item involved the sermon. I thought I was done until I received an e-mail from the Arkansas Conference reminding me that August 3 is “Anti-Lottery Sunday”. I admit that the “reminder” itself suggested that at some point I should have already been aware of the significance of this particular Sunday, but I just don’t recall the first notice. This is not to say that I support the lottery initiative. I don’t. I think it is a bad idea for probably as many reasons as some of you, perhaps many of you, may think it is a good idea. Whether the lottery itself is good or bad, however, is not the point that I hope to make. Not today, anyway.
There is my political self that is ideologically Republican, almost libertarian. That is to say, I think that the less our government is involved in our lives, the better. We can make our own mistakes, thank you very much, or we can enjoy our own successes. Even within the highest ideals of this freedom, we must always be mindful of those who are marginalized by society through no fault of their own either by disability or certain injustices which do still exist whether we like it or not.
With this freedom, then, comes duty and responsibility. We must recognize that our freedom to do as we choose ceases to exist when we infringe upon the legitimate rights of others. Cigarette smoking is a prime example. Smokers have every right to light up but when in the course of exercising that right the clean air is poisoned, the air that non-smokers cannot avoid such as in restaurants or other common-area public places, the right to smoke no longer exists even in the absence of state or city smoking prohibitions. At least, this is my opinion primarily as a matter of common, social, and public courtesy. When our rights become burdensome to others, we then have the duty or responsibility to make other choices. The struggle exists in doing what we OUGHT to do vs. doing what we would LIKE to do. This is, in our society and in our culture, the constant challenge of the faithful. My libertarian self says you have the right to buy lottery tickets when you like and smoke where you like until kingdom come. It is not the government’s business – or mine.
Then there is my religion self, a United Methodist with the honor and privilege of serving as a pastor, a minister – LIKE EVERY BELIEVER - of the entirely social Gospel of Christ, and one who believes that the Church as a whole has remained silent for too long about social issues but is now trying to find its voice and speak with clarity and with moral authority regarding the Church’s social obligations within the context of the Gospel. Admirable, but some elements of the Church have also found themselves advocating for “choice” and “freedom” pertaining to certain social issues and have, in my opinion, jeopardized the moral authority of the Church as a whole by using flawed doctrinal or theological reasoning. My religion self says that the Church must use its voice to speak against the lottery but, perhaps more importantly, help others to understand the nature of our opposition – but, of course, within the boundaries of existing law. Only in America, huh???
So what else is new? Does the past silence of the church require that we remain silent from now on and just let things go as society allows or demands, regardless of the risk potential? Does the fact that most of us probably can be accurately labeled “hypocrite” mean that we should just stop the charade and quit trying? No and No. The struggle exists uniquely in our society because we understand our religion self that is probably constantly struggling with our social and public policy self, our political alter-ego. Lotteries, casino gambling, and abortion spring to mind as issues we may struggle with, but what may not be clear is what we hope to come away from the struggle with, what we hope to accomplish. Can we, or should we even try to, protect people from themselves - even if in the name of Christ?
Jacob’s struggle in Genesis 32 seems to come out of nowhere, yet it is the story of a struggle endured by a man of faith who is moving “forward”, enroute to his destination in Canaan, the Promised Land. But who is this “man” who seems to come from nowhere and is not only not identified but who also refuses to identify himself when asked? And what might the story of this particular struggle suggest for we who continue to struggle on our own journeys as we face that which evokes fear and uncertainty especially when we do what we think is the proper thing but which will face almost certain opposition?
Some schools of thought have suggested that the “man” against whom Jacob wrestled was perhaps a demon or a Canaanite god intent on keeping Jacob from going any further, essentially trying to keep him from entering into Canaan. This theory makes sense in a couple of points: Jacob’s ability to overcome even with injury, and the seeming need of "the man" to avoid the light of day. There are problems with this theory, of course, not least of which are Jacob’s determination to receive a “blessing” directly from this “man” and Jacob’s proclamation in verse 30 in naming the place “Peniel” as he attributes the struggle to a direct encounter with the Lord and has lived to tell it.
I think most scholars agree, however, that “the man” whom Jacob encountered was an angel of the Lord, but it still remains unclear as to why this encounter took place exclusively for Jacob and why this encounter had to end before the sun came up. The timing of the sunrise, however, may only be incidental to chapter 33 which picks up right from this encounter: Jacob looks up and sees Esau coming with 400 men in tow. This impending encounter was one that Jacob was NOT looking forward to!
Maybe the struggle Jacob encounters could more reasonably be attributed to his previous plea to the Lord in chapter 32. Remember that Jacob is very afraid of meeting up with Esau because of the stunt he pulled in chapter 27 when he “tricked” his father Isaac into bestowing the blessing to Jacob that should have rightfully gone to the older brother, Esau, in which it is also written: “So Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau said in his heart, ‘The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then I will kill my brother Jacob'.”
If Jacob was aware of this searing hatred, and he most certainly was, then he had every right and reason to be afraid and flee as he did. I wonder, however, if the struggle we encounter daily is the same struggle between Jacob’s religion self that should have been comforted by his earlier prayer in which he reminded even himself that that the Lord had already told him, “I will surely treat you well …”, and Jacob’s more worldly, political self which recognized Esau’s right to be upset and reason to seek vengeance.
The struggle may well be reduced to nothing more than a matter of faith in believing in, and resting on, the promises of the Lord God rather than turning to our own devices to manipulate an outcome more favorable to self than to the glory of the Lord God. The struggle is imminent, I think, perhaps because we have become too worldly over time and, rather than resist the worldly influences, we have probably resisted the religion.
The good news is that as long as a sense of struggle exists, there is hope. It could well mean that we are attempting to find a place for everything and keep everything in its proper perspective. The spiritual reality is that we cannot segregate ourselves by our worldly inclinations and our spiritual being, they being two parts of the same whole.
Within this struggle, however, we must finally and completely come to understand that it is the SPIRITUAL part of ourselves that will endure long after everything worldly has faded away. It must necessarily be, then, that we shift our focus on worldly things with our spiritual perspective, to be informed by the social Gospel of Christ so that the struggle will finally and completely give way to the will of the Lord God our Father. To His Glory … now and forever. AMEN.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Stating the Obvious
1 Kings 3:5-12
Romans 8:26-39
Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52
In 1 Kings 3 King Solomon’s reign is in its infancy. The first two chapters speak of the last days of King David and the advice he gave to Solomon about whom to trust, whom to watch, and whom to punish. After David’s death, King Solomon goes about “cleaning house” and, at least in his mind, administering justice according to his father’s advice. He also had to deal with an errant brother who had previously taken it upon himself to claim the throne of the kingdom when he learned that King David’s days were numbered. And here we thought our own “to-do” lists were overwhelming!
Sooner or later our lives will catch up with us if we refuse to slow down and think things through, but too often we run and rely on instinct and habit to get our “stuff” done. And while we may say there is no fair comparison between our “list” and King Solomon’s “list”, I will submit to you that even as Solomon’s “list” involved people’s lives, so do ours. It just is that we tend to get so caught up in our own private little world that we fail to take into account that every moment spent completely self-absorbed is another moment that could have perhaps been put to better use for the sake of the Kingdom. We may also reasonably come to the conclusion that our natural inclinations or instincts are not God-breathed and are not necessarily divinely inspired. Still, we go according to what seems right for the moment.
Solomon is obeying his father’s instructions in carrying out some perhaps questionable executions. The wisdom of Solomon’s rule thus far has been by the edge of the sword, and why not? King David was a righteous man and was faithful to the Lord to the very end as it is written, so following his advice would seem the thing to do. Nevertheless, as David’s life was coming to an end it had already been told to him that Adonijah – David’s son by a woman other than Bathsheba but still the eldest surviving son of the king nonetheless – had already proclaimed himself king which was not in keeping with what the Lord had shared with David as written in 1 Chronicles 22:9-13 which promised that David’s son, whose name shall be Solomon, will succeed him to rule AND build the Temple that King David had wanted to build.
Building a Temple dedicated to worship of the Lord God of Israel seemed perfectly right and good to King David, but he was a man of war. By his hand blood had been shed, and so it would not be fitting to the Lord that a man of war would build a temple dedicated to the Lord God. The desire that King David had was simply not enough. According to the word of the Lord, it was not time.
Isn’t it always the way, though, that after we have done all that we thought we needed to do, there is always something left over that REALLY needed to be done but was overlooked because we were running on “auto-pilot” just to hurry and finish? This almost seems to be what King Solomon has concluded, judging by the prayer he offers to the Lord when asked to name what he needs. Though Solomon will eventually have problems of his own as king, it is evident by his request at this stage in his life and reign that he does at least acknowledge his limitations as a human being and that he is going to need divine wisdom in order to govern the Lord’s “chosen” people, seeming to comprehend the task of “the chosen”.
Do we ever admit our short-comings and acknowledge the limitations of our own humanity often enough so as to humble ourselves before the Lord in asking for His help instead of running on instinct or just doing what feels right or blaming someone for our failure to do all we wanted – or thought we needed – to do? I admit that this is perhaps one of my biggest failures – among many, I’m sad to report!
It seems to me that the limitations of our humanity are exactly the reason why Jesus spoke so often of the Kingdom of Heaven in parables. It is along the same line as teaching a child that 2 + 2 = 4. It is not enough to simply know this to be true; one must also know WHY this is true, how such a conclusion is reached. Memorization may be a good thing on a certain level, but without the why’s and how’s of a particularly tough subject, the memorization will never be internalized nor personalized. It will never make sense and so will never be relevant in any real way except to maybe pass a math test.
So King Solomon’s prayer is a sincere prayer which recognizes that sound reasoning, rational thought, and divine guidance are all ingredients required of being able to minister to those who are entrusted to his care. It is no less so for those of us entrusted with the Good News of the New Covenant, but nothing will make sense to us until we think AND reason AND pray through it. Jesus is offering exactly that by speaking to His disciples in parables.
These parables may not make sense right off the bat, but they require that we think through them and pray through them. Even before that, we need a time of prayer and reflection so that divine wisdom may be imparted to us. I don’t know that it will “just happen”. The answer to any prayer will come only in the Lord’s time and not our own - which we readily acknowledge when we’re not in any big hurry - but we also have to be ready and willing to receive what is offered to us regardless of the answer or advice.
I think maybe this is the very reason why prayer is the single, most difficult of all the spiritual disciplines, to pray without speaking a word so that answers and guidance can be received. Even more difficult than this, however, is the acquisition of a willing heart enabled to hear an answer we did not wish for.
Being a disciple of Christ is no easy thing. It is not for the faint-hearted or the weak-minded. This is partly why I take exception to those who dismiss Christianity as a “crutch” for the weak-minded who cannot or will not deal with “real life”. There is nothing weak about being enabled to swallow pride, admit limitations, and lean toward the Lord for help BEFORE we insert foot in mouth or otherwise make fools of ourselves. Sometimes silence is the better option, but our instincts will not always allow for that, will they?
Reading Scripture is important for spiritual growth, but scripture is nothing more than ancient literature if there is no divine wisdom to help guide us toward the ultimate Truth. And this should be the struggle of every disciple, young or old, because if we ever reach a point when we come to believe that we have it all figured out, it is then when we will stop growing and will actually move backward, “for My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9
Pray that we never “figure it out”. Amen
Romans 8:26-39
Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52
In 1 Kings 3 King Solomon’s reign is in its infancy. The first two chapters speak of the last days of King David and the advice he gave to Solomon about whom to trust, whom to watch, and whom to punish. After David’s death, King Solomon goes about “cleaning house” and, at least in his mind, administering justice according to his father’s advice. He also had to deal with an errant brother who had previously taken it upon himself to claim the throne of the kingdom when he learned that King David’s days were numbered. And here we thought our own “to-do” lists were overwhelming!
Sooner or later our lives will catch up with us if we refuse to slow down and think things through, but too often we run and rely on instinct and habit to get our “stuff” done. And while we may say there is no fair comparison between our “list” and King Solomon’s “list”, I will submit to you that even as Solomon’s “list” involved people’s lives, so do ours. It just is that we tend to get so caught up in our own private little world that we fail to take into account that every moment spent completely self-absorbed is another moment that could have perhaps been put to better use for the sake of the Kingdom. We may also reasonably come to the conclusion that our natural inclinations or instincts are not God-breathed and are not necessarily divinely inspired. Still, we go according to what seems right for the moment.
Solomon is obeying his father’s instructions in carrying out some perhaps questionable executions. The wisdom of Solomon’s rule thus far has been by the edge of the sword, and why not? King David was a righteous man and was faithful to the Lord to the very end as it is written, so following his advice would seem the thing to do. Nevertheless, as David’s life was coming to an end it had already been told to him that Adonijah – David’s son by a woman other than Bathsheba but still the eldest surviving son of the king nonetheless – had already proclaimed himself king which was not in keeping with what the Lord had shared with David as written in 1 Chronicles 22:9-13 which promised that David’s son, whose name shall be Solomon, will succeed him to rule AND build the Temple that King David had wanted to build.
Building a Temple dedicated to worship of the Lord God of Israel seemed perfectly right and good to King David, but he was a man of war. By his hand blood had been shed, and so it would not be fitting to the Lord that a man of war would build a temple dedicated to the Lord God. The desire that King David had was simply not enough. According to the word of the Lord, it was not time.
Isn’t it always the way, though, that after we have done all that we thought we needed to do, there is always something left over that REALLY needed to be done but was overlooked because we were running on “auto-pilot” just to hurry and finish? This almost seems to be what King Solomon has concluded, judging by the prayer he offers to the Lord when asked to name what he needs. Though Solomon will eventually have problems of his own as king, it is evident by his request at this stage in his life and reign that he does at least acknowledge his limitations as a human being and that he is going to need divine wisdom in order to govern the Lord’s “chosen” people, seeming to comprehend the task of “the chosen”.
Do we ever admit our short-comings and acknowledge the limitations of our own humanity often enough so as to humble ourselves before the Lord in asking for His help instead of running on instinct or just doing what feels right or blaming someone for our failure to do all we wanted – or thought we needed – to do? I admit that this is perhaps one of my biggest failures – among many, I’m sad to report!
It seems to me that the limitations of our humanity are exactly the reason why Jesus spoke so often of the Kingdom of Heaven in parables. It is along the same line as teaching a child that 2 + 2 = 4. It is not enough to simply know this to be true; one must also know WHY this is true, how such a conclusion is reached. Memorization may be a good thing on a certain level, but without the why’s and how’s of a particularly tough subject, the memorization will never be internalized nor personalized. It will never make sense and so will never be relevant in any real way except to maybe pass a math test.
So King Solomon’s prayer is a sincere prayer which recognizes that sound reasoning, rational thought, and divine guidance are all ingredients required of being able to minister to those who are entrusted to his care. It is no less so for those of us entrusted with the Good News of the New Covenant, but nothing will make sense to us until we think AND reason AND pray through it. Jesus is offering exactly that by speaking to His disciples in parables.
These parables may not make sense right off the bat, but they require that we think through them and pray through them. Even before that, we need a time of prayer and reflection so that divine wisdom may be imparted to us. I don’t know that it will “just happen”. The answer to any prayer will come only in the Lord’s time and not our own - which we readily acknowledge when we’re not in any big hurry - but we also have to be ready and willing to receive what is offered to us regardless of the answer or advice.
I think maybe this is the very reason why prayer is the single, most difficult of all the spiritual disciplines, to pray without speaking a word so that answers and guidance can be received. Even more difficult than this, however, is the acquisition of a willing heart enabled to hear an answer we did not wish for.
Being a disciple of Christ is no easy thing. It is not for the faint-hearted or the weak-minded. This is partly why I take exception to those who dismiss Christianity as a “crutch” for the weak-minded who cannot or will not deal with “real life”. There is nothing weak about being enabled to swallow pride, admit limitations, and lean toward the Lord for help BEFORE we insert foot in mouth or otherwise make fools of ourselves. Sometimes silence is the better option, but our instincts will not always allow for that, will they?
Reading Scripture is important for spiritual growth, but scripture is nothing more than ancient literature if there is no divine wisdom to help guide us toward the ultimate Truth. And this should be the struggle of every disciple, young or old, because if we ever reach a point when we come to believe that we have it all figured out, it is then when we will stop growing and will actually move backward, “for My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9
Pray that we never “figure it out”. Amen
Friday, July 25, 2008
Victims ... or ambassadors
Something occurred to me as I was driving this afternoon while listening to American Family Radio. There was a report of some school (I’m afraid I perked up only after most of the details had already been given) that had written policies governing the dissemination of religion-related materials such as Bible School invitations. One particular church followed the rules to the letter, but the assistant superintendent of the schools decided against allowing the invitations to be distributed, citing – of course – church/state issues. And – of course – someone has his or her nose out of joint as a result and – of course – is claiming “persecution” or, at the very least, unconstitutional behavior.
Considering that this particular issue has numerous sub-issues, I am going to attempt to address only a couple as I see them in hopes that other Christians may be able to come to terms with the fact that there will always be obstacles slowing our journey. Whether these obstacles are results of the evil one’s direct intervention or the plain ignorance and fear of man, it matters little to the disciple who is serious about the work of the Gospel and feels unfairly burdened.
Even if a public school district has consulted with legal experts (a major expense) about how to properly deal with religious issues, there is always the potential for a lawsuit which will, more often than not, require more legal guidance (more expense). At a time when many public school districts are struggling financially, a decision to forego even a potential lawsuit is fiscally responsible … and the potential seems always to exist. If such unnecessary expenditures can be avoided, by all means avoid them. The money is better spent for teacher salaries, supplies, bus fuel, etc. And in today’s climate when everyone and his brother-in-law is trying to claim “victim” status to one degree or another, it is best for a public school district to stay out of the religion business altogether.
For Christians to claim “victim” status, however, is beneath contempt. In the United States, it is perfectly – and physically - safe to be a Christian and worship openly, but there are laws in this country which exist for historically sound reasons. Even by the wording of the Constitution, this is a decidedly secular – if neutral – government. The state is prohibited from taking sides or even getting involved at all. That having been said, then, it must be understood by Christians that even as we can claim US citizenship by birth or oath, we are unmistakably - and foremost - citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven by virtue of rebirth. In this country and in this world we are ambassadors, foreign dignitaries charged with the responsibility of abiding by and respecting the laws of our host nation. And if this nation’s laws say that there is a distinctive line between church and state that must not be crossed, then so be it.
Make no mistake. I am not defending those who seem to seek out opportunities to be “offended” by religion; I think it is much ado about nothing and that those who make such claims are only seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. I think it is a little ridiculous to claim harm on any level by seeing Christian literature passed around at a public school or hearing a prayer, for instance, at a public school football game. However, these people are still constitutionally protected from religionists who attempt to force feed their beliefs on a public that, regardless of sharing a belief in the New Covenant, simply may not see things exactly the way these religionists think they should. Therein lays the harm.
Jesus never imposed Himself on anyone. If He was asked a question, He answered it. If He was called upon to have mercy and heal, He showed mercy and healed. He was never without compassion for those who wallowed in their ignorance, but He could not really help anyone who did not want help. And if He was asked to leave a place, He would leave (Mark 5:17-18) just as He had advised His disciples to do (Matthew 10:14).
There is plenty of injustice in the world, but a Christian group being denied permission to distribute Bible School invitations at a public school does not quite meet the criteria of “unjust” when there will always exist alternatives such as going door-to-door or doing mass mailings and advertising. Obstacles only challenge us to go around them, but our journey must still continue because the obstacle itself was not, and perhaps is not, the ultimate goal. And if we cannot go one way around this obstacle but we are sure we are headed in the right direction, then we must choose to go another way. Let us be mindful, however, that allegiance to Jesus and the New Covenant is a decision that individuals must make freely and without compulsion. Shoving religion down someone’s throat is not only not within our “rights” but is a direct violation of another’s legitimate rights.
This is not who we are, and it is not who we are called to be or what we are called to do. Many will seek us out sooner or later and they may come calling as a result of our faithfulness, but they will never come to Christ if He is presented to them as an unreasonable and demanding task-master or iron-fisted ruler. We have rights, you know, and we rejected one king some 230 years ago who attempted to usurp the rights of man. Another equally unreasonable and demanding king will not likely fare much better.
Considering that this particular issue has numerous sub-issues, I am going to attempt to address only a couple as I see them in hopes that other Christians may be able to come to terms with the fact that there will always be obstacles slowing our journey. Whether these obstacles are results of the evil one’s direct intervention or the plain ignorance and fear of man, it matters little to the disciple who is serious about the work of the Gospel and feels unfairly burdened.
Even if a public school district has consulted with legal experts (a major expense) about how to properly deal with religious issues, there is always the potential for a lawsuit which will, more often than not, require more legal guidance (more expense). At a time when many public school districts are struggling financially, a decision to forego even a potential lawsuit is fiscally responsible … and the potential seems always to exist. If such unnecessary expenditures can be avoided, by all means avoid them. The money is better spent for teacher salaries, supplies, bus fuel, etc. And in today’s climate when everyone and his brother-in-law is trying to claim “victim” status to one degree or another, it is best for a public school district to stay out of the religion business altogether.
For Christians to claim “victim” status, however, is beneath contempt. In the United States, it is perfectly – and physically - safe to be a Christian and worship openly, but there are laws in this country which exist for historically sound reasons. Even by the wording of the Constitution, this is a decidedly secular – if neutral – government. The state is prohibited from taking sides or even getting involved at all. That having been said, then, it must be understood by Christians that even as we can claim US citizenship by birth or oath, we are unmistakably - and foremost - citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven by virtue of rebirth. In this country and in this world we are ambassadors, foreign dignitaries charged with the responsibility of abiding by and respecting the laws of our host nation. And if this nation’s laws say that there is a distinctive line between church and state that must not be crossed, then so be it.
Make no mistake. I am not defending those who seem to seek out opportunities to be “offended” by religion; I think it is much ado about nothing and that those who make such claims are only seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. I think it is a little ridiculous to claim harm on any level by seeing Christian literature passed around at a public school or hearing a prayer, for instance, at a public school football game. However, these people are still constitutionally protected from religionists who attempt to force feed their beliefs on a public that, regardless of sharing a belief in the New Covenant, simply may not see things exactly the way these religionists think they should. Therein lays the harm.
Jesus never imposed Himself on anyone. If He was asked a question, He answered it. If He was called upon to have mercy and heal, He showed mercy and healed. He was never without compassion for those who wallowed in their ignorance, but He could not really help anyone who did not want help. And if He was asked to leave a place, He would leave (Mark 5:17-18) just as He had advised His disciples to do (Matthew 10:14).
There is plenty of injustice in the world, but a Christian group being denied permission to distribute Bible School invitations at a public school does not quite meet the criteria of “unjust” when there will always exist alternatives such as going door-to-door or doing mass mailings and advertising. Obstacles only challenge us to go around them, but our journey must still continue because the obstacle itself was not, and perhaps is not, the ultimate goal. And if we cannot go one way around this obstacle but we are sure we are headed in the right direction, then we must choose to go another way. Let us be mindful, however, that allegiance to Jesus and the New Covenant is a decision that individuals must make freely and without compulsion. Shoving religion down someone’s throat is not only not within our “rights” but is a direct violation of another’s legitimate rights.
This is not who we are, and it is not who we are called to be or what we are called to do. Many will seek us out sooner or later and they may come calling as a result of our faithfulness, but they will never come to Christ if He is presented to them as an unreasonable and demanding task-master or iron-fisted ruler. We have rights, you know, and we rejected one king some 230 years ago who attempted to usurp the rights of man. Another equally unreasonable and demanding king will not likely fare much better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)