Malachi 3:8-12 2 Corinthians 9:5-15 Matthew 22:15-22
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
The difference between genuine "religious belief" and "superstition" is manifest in what the writer of Hebrews is expressing. Superstition deals primarily with the here-and-now while religious faith deals almost exclusively with what is to be. Faith does not simply acknowledge a present reality; faith deals in the substance of the future reality, the "substance of things HOPED FOR, the evidence of things NOT SEEN" (I might add, not seen "yet"). In other words, religious belief expressed in faith is about what is to come, not about what has been and not even about what currently is. Faith is all about the future!
When the Church calls the faithful into the season of Lent, it is not for the purpose of continuing a practice that was conceived in the past; it is not just something we are "supposed to" do. When the faithful are called to make sacrifices during Lent, it is not with an eye on what is right before us such as seeing if we can go 40 days without ______. The season, the practices, the devotions, the sacrifices - if done with the right spirit and heart - are all done with a sound belief not in what was previously established, not in what is the current dogma (or practice) of the contemporary Church, but in what is to come. It is expressed not merely in what we believe in right now, but that we TRUST what is to be.
The same thing can be said about the giving of tithes. It is not about what we are "supposed to" do, it is not about what we happen to have to spare right now (which is predominantly an act of fear), and it most certainly is not about paying the local church's bills. As a spiritual practice, tithing must be an expression of "faith" - the substance of things "hoped for", the evidence of things not seen "yet". Like Lent, like Holy Communion, like prayer, like worship, like fasting, like tithing; if all these things are done simply because we have come to believe they are expected of us, then we are stuck in the present "habit" of engaging in empty religious (if superstitious) practices. Hope as trust in that which is to come cannot exist in such empty, shallow practices. Such empty practices are little more than a reflection of the current reality.
There are some who might suggest that in the New Covenant, the tithe does not have the same substance. They suggest the tithe was just something the ancient Hebrews were engaged in as merely a test of obedience, little more than a "legal" requirement that all should fulfill. But this is not what is expressed by the Lord through His prophet Malachi. The Lord is challenging the faithful not to "be tested"; they are actually encouraged to test the Lord! A word of caution about the interpretation of this text, however. The Lord is not promising that in the "here-and-now" He will magically increase what is offered just to prove to them that their present is secure; the Lord is promising His faithful A FUTURE filled with hope! But we must believe in the Promise with hope and eager anticipation. Habit is a mere grudging acceptance of what is right now.
It is necessarily the same interpretation of what St. Paul is expressing to the Corinthians. A gift cannot be reduced merely to the "tithe" or strictly 10% because there can be no hope in such a mathematical equation that merely reflects the current reality and has nothing to do with the future reality. It then becomes not a "gift" to the Lord but a "tax" to the Church.
In some of the larger, so-called "mega" churches, absolute proof is required of a 10% "cut" for those who are employed by the church or are assigned leadership positions such as committee chairs, and in some cases even to participate in choir or other more public endeavors of worship on behalf of that particular church. They call it "spiritual integrity"; I call it a cryin' shame because the very concept of "gift" is in jeopardy. They are invoking and forcing a "habit" that is completely void of any sense or semblance of "hope". It is a "habit" that is being enforced by threat of the loss of a job or other worship participation. I don't know, maybe even the threat of a loss of fellowship in that particular church. These so-called "spiritual leaders" have completely missed the point! But these mega-churches also have overwhelming financial realities they must contend with. They are not freed from any shackles of bondage; THEY ARE "TRAPPED".
St. Paul admonishes the Corinthians, however, that "those who sow sparingly will reap sparingly" as those who "sow bountifully will also reap bountifully". St. Paul is not talking about the "here-and-now" for the Corinthians, though. He is talking about expressions of a faith in what is to come, what is "yet to be seen". The FUTURE reality filled with hope and promise; not the present reality in which is found only empty, almost mindless habits; habits that come to be resented as "grudging". Like Malachi, St. Paul is talking about a future; specifically the future of the Church and what the Lord will call forth from that Church.
What we must learn to get past when the collection plate comes by is the notion that we are merely contributing to the "bill-paying" apparatus of our local churches, bills that must be paid before we can even think about ministry to the community. We must realize that what goes into the plate cannot be a mere contribution to the budget which comes out of our pockets. It is our gift to the Lord which comes from a heart filled with joy and hope! It is a gift of thanksgiving that expresses not the current reality or necessity - but rather the future reality that is firmly in the hands of our Lord. The gift we offer must be an expression of that hope if it is a spiritual practice at all.
I'll grant that there are budgetary realities every church must be mindful of, but overall giving has declined. There are many reasons why some would choose to withhold. Some out of some silent protest, a protest we may never know the nature of, but some - perhaps many - withhold out of a sense of fear.
We still live in very strange and very unsettling economic climate. People are still losing their jobs, and people are still living in fear of losing their jobs. Many of us are genuinely afraid of tomorrow's unknown challenges - and for good, practical reasons! And we're not stupid! We can see the writing on the wall, and we have every practical reason to be apprehensive.
But faith is not practical. Hope is virtually nonsensical. And promises of what "might" be? Almost completely empty ... to the practical mind. But what is faith without substance? And what is hope without evidence? Superstitious nonsense. Fear without foundation. We're jumping at shadows. We are afraid of the unknown.
And this is the very reason why faith itself is a divinely imparted Gift from the Lord. It is not something you and I can "go get" or "come to". I'm not even sure if the substance of faith itself can be "developed" or "reasoned" because anything we reach for in books or studies or from our own minds cannot make us unafraid of the unknown. There is nothing man-made that can give us the substance of hope because anything that comes from humans will last only as long as humanity lasts. Politicians have been promising us a better life for I don't know how long - and by now we should know they are making promises they CANNOT keep. They may mean it when they say it, but what the human race really needs - TRULY NEEDS - will not and cannot be politically assigned.
The challenge is before us today. We are here in this sanctuary because we believe we have been given life - and in abundance, as Jesus Himself promised. Knowing you and I will never taste death by protection of the Mighty Hand of the Living God, what exactly would we give in return? And seeing that the Life we are promised is before us, so much more our hope and faith in what is before us ... YET to be seen, YET to be reaped ... perhaps because it is yet to be sown.
Only you and the Lord know. Amen.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Holiness
John 3:1-17
A Dallas TX therapist once wrote, "If religion is not used as a magic pill but as a source of spiritual and moral strength and guidance, then it can be a major contributing factor to preserving marriage ... [HOWEVER, bumper sticker slogans like] 'Put God first in your marriage', whatever that means to them, 'be faithful in church, be a good Christian, pray a lot, attend church, and God will work everything out for you' [can be significant, contributing factors to the failures of many Christian marriages]. - Dr. Roy Austin, therapist and Southwestern Seminary graduate
Before I go further, let me say that what I want to share and hope to convey is not exclusively about marriage or divorce; but an article I stumbled on recently brought to light certain realities about the Christian faith and the correlation between spiritual realities and spiritual expectations; all of which are related not only in marriage but in daily faithful living. The numbers themselves did not really surprise me, but the corresponding comments explaining some of the numbers, such as the comment I shared, did catch me a little off guard.
For instance, would you have guessed that the rate of divorce among the so-called evangelical, fundamentalist, typically very conservative, 'born again' Christians was significantly higher than the divorce rate among atheists and agnostics? Of course every poll can be slanted to manipulate a certain conclusion even though statisticians claim to be as fair and impartial as humanly possible. And maybe they are.
Some Christian groups have tried to claim that such numbers are a deliberate, manipulative, and concentrated effort to undermine Christianity in general. But when a pollster concludes that there is very little discernable difference between Christians and non-Christians in public life regardless of circumstances or categories - and the numbers seem to bear out these conclusions - now that is saying something. And the Church must sit up and take notice not exclusively because of public perceptions but primarily because of the notion - I might suggest "superstition" - of religious faith as that "magic pill" that will cure what ails us with little or no input or effort on our part; in other words, a "magical" transformation that does not take into account the Arminian doctrine of free will. It is not a "PR" nightmare the Church faces; rather it is a theological crisis of identity that goes far beyond marriage and divorce.
In my humble opinion and estimation, the term "born-again Christian" is very much misunderstood, often over-used, and profoundly misappropriated. John's text must be read very carefully in order to understand what Jesus is talking about. Notice vs. 10 when Jesus admonishes the "teacher of Israel" Nicodemus for not understanding what is being referred to. What seems directly implied is that there is existing Scripture sufficient to speak to Nicodemus and those he may be representing in what should already be known.
The concept of being "born again", then, is not exactly a "new" thing Jesus is initiating. Spiritual rebirth should have been widely known AND taught among the faithful of Israel, but it seems clear that this spiritual reality has been completely forgotten or, at the very least, misunderstood. I would suggest the misunderstanding might be more appropriate to what is being witnessed today by these pollsters and the general public.
It is written in Ezekiel 36:25-27, 29 (NRSV): "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you, and make you follow My statutes and be careful to observe My ordinances ... I will save you from all your uncleanness."
In case you are wondering, Ezekiel is Old Testament; and "old" does not seem appropriate to the text especially in the context in which Jesus is speaking. It must also be noted that Nicodemus is being admonished not only for being apparently unfamiliar with Scripture but also for failing to fulfill his role as a "teacher of Israel". The Sanhedrin, the Jewish council that may have served more of an 'enforcement' role rather than a teaching role in the life of Israel, is being admonished as a whole by Jesus not because they cannot grasp something "new". Rather, Nicodemus and those he may represent are being admonished for not knowing what already is a certain spiritual reality.
Remembering that contextual reading is everything in studying Scripture, we must remember that Ezekiel is speaking to Israel to and through the Exile. The Exile came when Israel and Judah both seemed determined to live by the "flesh". They were hopelessly spiritually and politically corrupt and profoundly idolatrous. Even though these were the "Lord's chosen" who had a clear Law and an equally clear sense of identity, the people of the Lord had betrayed them both by their idolatry - their love of self and their utter disregard for the Spirit and the Law of the Lord.
They had fallen back to the time of the Judges when everyone in Israel did "what was right in his own eyes"; every person for himself or herself, disregard for the Lord and His way, disregard for justice, and disregard for the "widow and the orphan". They had, by the works of their own hands and their "hearts of stone", become like every other kingdom and by their idolatrous acts, the lives they chose to lead, they had ignored the Lord. And because they were so headstrong, "stiff-necked", stubborn, and selfish like all their pagan neighbors, they were soon overwhelmed by their pagan neighbors, the Assyrians, in the Exile; they were run off their land. The people of the Lord devoted their lives to the chasing of their own tails rather than to the pursuit of holiness. And because holiness - spiritual cleanness - was obviously so unimportant to them, holiness was taken from them and they were handed over to their enemies because it was "happiness" they sought; not holiness.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with being happy. I surely do not believe the Lord calls us to a life of misery and pain, but the "pursuit of happiness" is much more vague, much more difficult to define than is the spiritual reality of simply being content, satisfied with where we are and with what we have; grateful to receive more as it comes, but not wholly devoted to that pursuit because those who are content with what is can devote time to those "means of grace" we employ to grow in faith. Being solely devoted to the "pursuit of happiness", personal pleasure, and personal accumulation of wealth means something must necessarily be pushed aside.
Jesus teaches as much when He tells us it simply is not possible to serve two masters because we will love one and hate the other. One will get in the way of the other so that in order to pursue one, the other must be rejected. Such as this may be at the heart of the conservation Jesus is having with Nicodemus, especially when Jesus clearly distinguishes "earthly things" from "heavenly things". Like Nicodemus, we are much more likely to put stock in what we can see, smell, taste, and touch than we are to pursue that which cannot be seen and may actually run contrary to what we please.
In the end, however, Jesus offers the heart of what He is sharing with Nicodemus. The Lord did not come to "condemn"; He came to "save" - EVERYONE who believes in Him. And as the Bible teaches, those who reject Him stand condemned already. Those who have chosen one "master" over another can be relatively and spiritually certain at just about any given time where they stand with the Lord because devotion to Him is not an "event" nor is there a "magic pill" that will simply make it all happen - it is the choice of Life in the pursuit of holiness. Period. The alternative is death.
As ironic as it may sound, the Lord loves enough that we are indeed at liberty to choose which it will be. Amen.
A Dallas TX therapist once wrote, "If religion is not used as a magic pill but as a source of spiritual and moral strength and guidance, then it can be a major contributing factor to preserving marriage ... [HOWEVER, bumper sticker slogans like] 'Put God first in your marriage', whatever that means to them, 'be faithful in church, be a good Christian, pray a lot, attend church, and God will work everything out for you' [can be significant, contributing factors to the failures of many Christian marriages]. - Dr. Roy Austin, therapist and Southwestern Seminary graduate
Before I go further, let me say that what I want to share and hope to convey is not exclusively about marriage or divorce; but an article I stumbled on recently brought to light certain realities about the Christian faith and the correlation between spiritual realities and spiritual expectations; all of which are related not only in marriage but in daily faithful living. The numbers themselves did not really surprise me, but the corresponding comments explaining some of the numbers, such as the comment I shared, did catch me a little off guard.
For instance, would you have guessed that the rate of divorce among the so-called evangelical, fundamentalist, typically very conservative, 'born again' Christians was significantly higher than the divorce rate among atheists and agnostics? Of course every poll can be slanted to manipulate a certain conclusion even though statisticians claim to be as fair and impartial as humanly possible. And maybe they are.
Some Christian groups have tried to claim that such numbers are a deliberate, manipulative, and concentrated effort to undermine Christianity in general. But when a pollster concludes that there is very little discernable difference between Christians and non-Christians in public life regardless of circumstances or categories - and the numbers seem to bear out these conclusions - now that is saying something. And the Church must sit up and take notice not exclusively because of public perceptions but primarily because of the notion - I might suggest "superstition" - of religious faith as that "magic pill" that will cure what ails us with little or no input or effort on our part; in other words, a "magical" transformation that does not take into account the Arminian doctrine of free will. It is not a "PR" nightmare the Church faces; rather it is a theological crisis of identity that goes far beyond marriage and divorce.
In my humble opinion and estimation, the term "born-again Christian" is very much misunderstood, often over-used, and profoundly misappropriated. John's text must be read very carefully in order to understand what Jesus is talking about. Notice vs. 10 when Jesus admonishes the "teacher of Israel" Nicodemus for not understanding what is being referred to. What seems directly implied is that there is existing Scripture sufficient to speak to Nicodemus and those he may be representing in what should already be known.
The concept of being "born again", then, is not exactly a "new" thing Jesus is initiating. Spiritual rebirth should have been widely known AND taught among the faithful of Israel, but it seems clear that this spiritual reality has been completely forgotten or, at the very least, misunderstood. I would suggest the misunderstanding might be more appropriate to what is being witnessed today by these pollsters and the general public.
It is written in Ezekiel 36:25-27, 29 (NRSV): "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you, and make you follow My statutes and be careful to observe My ordinances ... I will save you from all your uncleanness."
In case you are wondering, Ezekiel is Old Testament; and "old" does not seem appropriate to the text especially in the context in which Jesus is speaking. It must also be noted that Nicodemus is being admonished not only for being apparently unfamiliar with Scripture but also for failing to fulfill his role as a "teacher of Israel". The Sanhedrin, the Jewish council that may have served more of an 'enforcement' role rather than a teaching role in the life of Israel, is being admonished as a whole by Jesus not because they cannot grasp something "new". Rather, Nicodemus and those he may represent are being admonished for not knowing what already is a certain spiritual reality.
Remembering that contextual reading is everything in studying Scripture, we must remember that Ezekiel is speaking to Israel to and through the Exile. The Exile came when Israel and Judah both seemed determined to live by the "flesh". They were hopelessly spiritually and politically corrupt and profoundly idolatrous. Even though these were the "Lord's chosen" who had a clear Law and an equally clear sense of identity, the people of the Lord had betrayed them both by their idolatry - their love of self and their utter disregard for the Spirit and the Law of the Lord.
They had fallen back to the time of the Judges when everyone in Israel did "what was right in his own eyes"; every person for himself or herself, disregard for the Lord and His way, disregard for justice, and disregard for the "widow and the orphan". They had, by the works of their own hands and their "hearts of stone", become like every other kingdom and by their idolatrous acts, the lives they chose to lead, they had ignored the Lord. And because they were so headstrong, "stiff-necked", stubborn, and selfish like all their pagan neighbors, they were soon overwhelmed by their pagan neighbors, the Assyrians, in the Exile; they were run off their land. The people of the Lord devoted their lives to the chasing of their own tails rather than to the pursuit of holiness. And because holiness - spiritual cleanness - was obviously so unimportant to them, holiness was taken from them and they were handed over to their enemies because it was "happiness" they sought; not holiness.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with being happy. I surely do not believe the Lord calls us to a life of misery and pain, but the "pursuit of happiness" is much more vague, much more difficult to define than is the spiritual reality of simply being content, satisfied with where we are and with what we have; grateful to receive more as it comes, but not wholly devoted to that pursuit because those who are content with what is can devote time to those "means of grace" we employ to grow in faith. Being solely devoted to the "pursuit of happiness", personal pleasure, and personal accumulation of wealth means something must necessarily be pushed aside.
Jesus teaches as much when He tells us it simply is not possible to serve two masters because we will love one and hate the other. One will get in the way of the other so that in order to pursue one, the other must be rejected. Such as this may be at the heart of the conservation Jesus is having with Nicodemus, especially when Jesus clearly distinguishes "earthly things" from "heavenly things". Like Nicodemus, we are much more likely to put stock in what we can see, smell, taste, and touch than we are to pursue that which cannot be seen and may actually run contrary to what we please.
In the end, however, Jesus offers the heart of what He is sharing with Nicodemus. The Lord did not come to "condemn"; He came to "save" - EVERYONE who believes in Him. And as the Bible teaches, those who reject Him stand condemned already. Those who have chosen one "master" over another can be relatively and spiritually certain at just about any given time where they stand with the Lord because devotion to Him is not an "event" nor is there a "magic pill" that will simply make it all happen - it is the choice of Life in the pursuit of holiness. Period. The alternative is death.
As ironic as it may sound, the Lord loves enough that we are indeed at liberty to choose which it will be. Amen.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Potential of Self
Matthew 4:1-11
"Who are we? A good United Methodist disciple of Christ is one who understands that discipleship is more than just a personal, feel-good state of being; a disciple is one who is willing to live with hopeful and faith-filled risk in an earthquake kind of world where all the platforms and ways of doing with which we have become comfortable are shifting."
"I have become more and more convinced that a living faith is a risking faith. It is about Abraham and Sarah packing up the family to go on a journey simply because the Lord called. It is about Moses and the children of Israel being willing to wander in the wilderness and ultimately not lose faith in the rightness of the journey. It is about finding our way through a new wilderness."
"It is more about who we can become than about who we are."
- Charles Crutchfield, UM bishop of Arkansas
The sermon title itself betrays what I hope to share because as I have long maintained, a covenant relationship of any kind cannot be one-sided. It cannot be reduced to "self", and it must transcend the "personal". To place conditions upon a relationship to one's own benefit would be to define one's limits within that relationship and would be almost exclusively about self - i.e., 'what's in it for me', which is no commitment at all and betrays the sacrificial nature of the biblical context of "love", the very foundation upon which the Church is built.
To completely deny self, however, is to deny what is equally important and necessary to the covenant relationship: our "personal" involvement, our active participation, and yes, our own edification. In other words, a relationship involving us as individuals would not exist if we were not personally AND actively involved. There is no relationship, covenant or otherwise, that involves only "taking".
The sacramental relationship within the Covenant of the Lord is open to all who would come forward to present themselves and their children to the Sacrament of Baptism, but those not baptized into the Covenant cannot reasonably claim to be a part of the covenant relationship simply because they have given nothing. Nor can those who will do only according to their personal desires, wishes, and terms claim to be active participants in the covenant relationship.
A life of faith and discipleship must necessarily begin within the covenant relationship, but this relationship also should not be entered into blindly. Jesus Himself admonishes us to "count the cost" (Luke 14:28) to decide if we are willing to give all that will be required and asked of us because no relationship, especially the Covenant relationship, can be defined strictly according to our own wants and wishes; not when a standard and conditions already exist.
Entering into the Covenant, then, is not about who we currently are, as Bishop Crutchfield points out; it is about who we can and will - perhaps must - become. It is not about getting "right with God" by our own deeds before entering into His covenant. It is entirely about allowing Him to lead us into righteousness according to His own purposes. This is one of the reasons why United Methodism has maintained the centuries-old practice of the baptism of infants and children: it is entirely about what is ahead for young and old alike. It is about who we will become for Him. This portrait is the essence of Jesus' journey into the wilderness.
Faith is an adventure because faith is always risky; if there is no risk, there can be no faith because we would then step only according to what we know in our flesh, what we can see with our own eyes, and what we can touch with our hands and feet. Faith is essentially a step into the unknown but faith is also a confident step because even though we cannot "see" or "feel", we nevertheless "know". So it must have been with Jesus going into the wilderness. There is no indication Jesus knew this leg of His journey would last exactly 40 days, but there is every indication that Jesus "followed" the Spirit without hesitation; secure in the "rightness" of this risk, this journey.
Early Church theologians maintained that Jesus took this journey to "show us the way". The ancient Church practice of Lent begins with this understanding, but Lent has become a "season" that has a beginning and an ending. This is obviously not the case, of course, because Jesus' journey into the wilderness for this 40-day period was obviously a beginning but was not the journey in itself; the journey did not end when the fast ended. It was a time of preparation, a time of "tempting", and a time of "testing" perhaps, for all that would eventually unfold. Even in the riskiest of adventures, those "extreme" practitioners always prepare and train for the event. To jump straight into such extremes without adequate preparation is sheer madness, if not suicide! Lack of preparation virtually guarantees failure.
So it seems that before the evil one comes onto the scene, Jesus must endure the fast. The evil one wants a reasonable assurance of success, so it is to his advantage to wait until Jesus the Man is weak with hunger and susceptible to temptation. It must be remembered, however, that the "summons" which led Jesus into the wilderness was divine and, thus, for divine purposes, not evil. Evil can have no legitimate claim on this moment. This moment in the wilderness as a time of preparation may have served as a warning to the evil one, but it cannot be said that this moment was exclusively for the evil one. If this were the case, the moment would definitely have an ending.
We cannot always know what is ahead for us, but this is entirely the point about faith. It is not about who or where we already are, and it is not exclusively about what we hope to gain for ourselves. I think it would be quite a stretch to suggest Jesus went into the wilderness only for Himself, but what He could reasonably expect to gain by such an act of faith would be immeasurable: strength not only to endure the moment - but the strength to push through and beyond the moment ... and the next one and the next one. In other words, this time of preparation is for the same kind of journey endured by Abraham and by Moses; not knowing the destination or even the conditions - but believing and trusting that even though the journey is much bigger than "self", "self" will still come out victorious in the end.
The Lenten journey is a beginning; it is not a test of endurance. To allow it to be measured as such is to depend entirely on one's own ability because the "end" is marked on a calendar; we can see it coming. We know how to pace ourselves so that we have enough strength to last X amount of time. This is not faith. In fact, if it were a test of faith it might be safe to say that most of us would fail if we were to succumb to the temptation to do only the bare minimum. You wanna talk about the "uselessness of organized religion"? There it is. Dogma. Just doing "stuff" to meet some vague religious requirement, but doing nothing to follow it up.
We can do better. Indeed we must. Look around. Our nation's Supreme Court whose rulings become the "law of the land" recently ruled that pure, unadulterated hatred that clearly shows no respect even for the dead, let alone the grieving family, is constitutionally protected. Men and women from all over, in various forms, are demanding "rights" but denying responsibility - and almost always at the expense of others. We are sacrificing our children, born and unborn, at the altar of self-indulgence. And we are, on almost all levels, more concerned about how others are carrying on than we are about how Christ the Lord is portrayed by our own lives. And we are demanding that the Lord come to terms with us ... on our terms, that is.
I am not going to talk about the earthquakes, the tsunamis, the riots, the protests, the "wars and rumors of wars" as a way of trying to make you afraid of the future. I am not - nor will I ever - suggest to you that you need to be afraid of the Day of Judgment. We must, however, acknowledge the present reality. What I am telling you is that the Lord Himself needed to be prepared as He confronted the present reality which involved the evil one. He Himself needed to take time to get ready for what lay ahead. He did not stock up on food, He did not hoard cash, and He did not stock up on weapons or ammo. He did, however, receive more than enough Help just by His willingness to take that first step.
He went straight to the Almighty with nothing but His heart. He left the world behind and removed Himself from all distractions to hear only One Voice. And He met evil face-to-face. And in so doing, He denied Himself food but was nevertheless adequately fed. He refused to put the Holy Father to the test, perhaps believing He was enduring a divine test. And in denying Himself the "kingdoms of the world and their splendor", He was nevertheless crowned the King of Kings.
Can we honestly believe that the Lord our God, our Holy Father, would offer any among His faithful - His own beloved children - any less?
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will forever be. Amen.
"Who are we? A good United Methodist disciple of Christ is one who understands that discipleship is more than just a personal, feel-good state of being; a disciple is one who is willing to live with hopeful and faith-filled risk in an earthquake kind of world where all the platforms and ways of doing with which we have become comfortable are shifting."
"I have become more and more convinced that a living faith is a risking faith. It is about Abraham and Sarah packing up the family to go on a journey simply because the Lord called. It is about Moses and the children of Israel being willing to wander in the wilderness and ultimately not lose faith in the rightness of the journey. It is about finding our way through a new wilderness."
"It is more about who we can become than about who we are."
- Charles Crutchfield, UM bishop of Arkansas
The sermon title itself betrays what I hope to share because as I have long maintained, a covenant relationship of any kind cannot be one-sided. It cannot be reduced to "self", and it must transcend the "personal". To place conditions upon a relationship to one's own benefit would be to define one's limits within that relationship and would be almost exclusively about self - i.e., 'what's in it for me', which is no commitment at all and betrays the sacrificial nature of the biblical context of "love", the very foundation upon which the Church is built.
To completely deny self, however, is to deny what is equally important and necessary to the covenant relationship: our "personal" involvement, our active participation, and yes, our own edification. In other words, a relationship involving us as individuals would not exist if we were not personally AND actively involved. There is no relationship, covenant or otherwise, that involves only "taking".
The sacramental relationship within the Covenant of the Lord is open to all who would come forward to present themselves and their children to the Sacrament of Baptism, but those not baptized into the Covenant cannot reasonably claim to be a part of the covenant relationship simply because they have given nothing. Nor can those who will do only according to their personal desires, wishes, and terms claim to be active participants in the covenant relationship.
A life of faith and discipleship must necessarily begin within the covenant relationship, but this relationship also should not be entered into blindly. Jesus Himself admonishes us to "count the cost" (Luke 14:28) to decide if we are willing to give all that will be required and asked of us because no relationship, especially the Covenant relationship, can be defined strictly according to our own wants and wishes; not when a standard and conditions already exist.
Entering into the Covenant, then, is not about who we currently are, as Bishop Crutchfield points out; it is about who we can and will - perhaps must - become. It is not about getting "right with God" by our own deeds before entering into His covenant. It is entirely about allowing Him to lead us into righteousness according to His own purposes. This is one of the reasons why United Methodism has maintained the centuries-old practice of the baptism of infants and children: it is entirely about what is ahead for young and old alike. It is about who we will become for Him. This portrait is the essence of Jesus' journey into the wilderness.
Faith is an adventure because faith is always risky; if there is no risk, there can be no faith because we would then step only according to what we know in our flesh, what we can see with our own eyes, and what we can touch with our hands and feet. Faith is essentially a step into the unknown but faith is also a confident step because even though we cannot "see" or "feel", we nevertheless "know". So it must have been with Jesus going into the wilderness. There is no indication Jesus knew this leg of His journey would last exactly 40 days, but there is every indication that Jesus "followed" the Spirit without hesitation; secure in the "rightness" of this risk, this journey.
Early Church theologians maintained that Jesus took this journey to "show us the way". The ancient Church practice of Lent begins with this understanding, but Lent has become a "season" that has a beginning and an ending. This is obviously not the case, of course, because Jesus' journey into the wilderness for this 40-day period was obviously a beginning but was not the journey in itself; the journey did not end when the fast ended. It was a time of preparation, a time of "tempting", and a time of "testing" perhaps, for all that would eventually unfold. Even in the riskiest of adventures, those "extreme" practitioners always prepare and train for the event. To jump straight into such extremes without adequate preparation is sheer madness, if not suicide! Lack of preparation virtually guarantees failure.
So it seems that before the evil one comes onto the scene, Jesus must endure the fast. The evil one wants a reasonable assurance of success, so it is to his advantage to wait until Jesus the Man is weak with hunger and susceptible to temptation. It must be remembered, however, that the "summons" which led Jesus into the wilderness was divine and, thus, for divine purposes, not evil. Evil can have no legitimate claim on this moment. This moment in the wilderness as a time of preparation may have served as a warning to the evil one, but it cannot be said that this moment was exclusively for the evil one. If this were the case, the moment would definitely have an ending.
We cannot always know what is ahead for us, but this is entirely the point about faith. It is not about who or where we already are, and it is not exclusively about what we hope to gain for ourselves. I think it would be quite a stretch to suggest Jesus went into the wilderness only for Himself, but what He could reasonably expect to gain by such an act of faith would be immeasurable: strength not only to endure the moment - but the strength to push through and beyond the moment ... and the next one and the next one. In other words, this time of preparation is for the same kind of journey endured by Abraham and by Moses; not knowing the destination or even the conditions - but believing and trusting that even though the journey is much bigger than "self", "self" will still come out victorious in the end.
The Lenten journey is a beginning; it is not a test of endurance. To allow it to be measured as such is to depend entirely on one's own ability because the "end" is marked on a calendar; we can see it coming. We know how to pace ourselves so that we have enough strength to last X amount of time. This is not faith. In fact, if it were a test of faith it might be safe to say that most of us would fail if we were to succumb to the temptation to do only the bare minimum. You wanna talk about the "uselessness of organized religion"? There it is. Dogma. Just doing "stuff" to meet some vague religious requirement, but doing nothing to follow it up.
We can do better. Indeed we must. Look around. Our nation's Supreme Court whose rulings become the "law of the land" recently ruled that pure, unadulterated hatred that clearly shows no respect even for the dead, let alone the grieving family, is constitutionally protected. Men and women from all over, in various forms, are demanding "rights" but denying responsibility - and almost always at the expense of others. We are sacrificing our children, born and unborn, at the altar of self-indulgence. And we are, on almost all levels, more concerned about how others are carrying on than we are about how Christ the Lord is portrayed by our own lives. And we are demanding that the Lord come to terms with us ... on our terms, that is.
I am not going to talk about the earthquakes, the tsunamis, the riots, the protests, the "wars and rumors of wars" as a way of trying to make you afraid of the future. I am not - nor will I ever - suggest to you that you need to be afraid of the Day of Judgment. We must, however, acknowledge the present reality. What I am telling you is that the Lord Himself needed to be prepared as He confronted the present reality which involved the evil one. He Himself needed to take time to get ready for what lay ahead. He did not stock up on food, He did not hoard cash, and He did not stock up on weapons or ammo. He did, however, receive more than enough Help just by His willingness to take that first step.
He went straight to the Almighty with nothing but His heart. He left the world behind and removed Himself from all distractions to hear only One Voice. And He met evil face-to-face. And in so doing, He denied Himself food but was nevertheless adequately fed. He refused to put the Holy Father to the test, perhaps believing He was enduring a divine test. And in denying Himself the "kingdoms of the world and their splendor", He was nevertheless crowned the King of Kings.
Can we honestly believe that the Lord our God, our Holy Father, would offer any among His faithful - His own beloved children - any less?
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will forever be. Amen.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Who needs to know?
Joel 2:1-2, 12-17 Psalm 51:1-17 Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21
Within a Lenten context of Jesus' lesson, the question is not what or even whether we are giving UP something for Lent. Perhaps the more appropriate question for disciples and for the Church as the Body of Christ should be about what we are GIVING for Lent.
Jesus speaks of "giving alms" which is the language of charitable giving to the poor, and He speaks clearly of fasting and praying as well. He does not seem to give one priority over another, but rather speaks of each as of equal importance - none of which seems inclined toward personal benefit or personal achievement on any level. As a point in fact, Jesus clearly speaks of keeping such things rather quiet lest we endanger ourselves - and deny the Holy Father His due glory - by pursuing our own personal glory or individual achievement.
It is a common thing for Christians to speak of giving up something for Lent, but I have noticed a substantial degradation of these spiritual practices when we speak of them publicly as some grand sacrifice that many do not understand and do not see as even necessary. Even worse, we speak of "giving up _____ for Lent" as some grand personal achievement as we feebly attempt to "one-up" a fellow practitioner or judge whether another's sacrificial choice is adequate. When we do this, are we not "sounding the trumpet" or perhaps implicitly soliciting pity if not admiration - "like the hypocrites" - when we do such things so publicly?
In the historic Church, Lent was a time of preparation for new catechumens; new Christians who were preparing and being prepared for baptism on Easter into the Church, the Covenant, and a life of discipleship. For the catechumen, it was not a matter of "personal" salvation or receiving a "personal" Lord and Savior, as intensely personal as the journey must have surely been; it was a time to "count the cost" of choosing to follow Jesus. It was a time of preparation for a much larger and broader application within the Holy Church. This time of intense preparation was reminiscent of Jesus' forty-day journey in the wilderness in preparation for His earthly ministry. It was not at all about Jesus "personally".
As such, Lent was necessarily a time of intense prayer, intense study, and intense fasting. It was a time of self-denial and ideally a time of a great spiritual awakening; and because of this, it must surely have also been a time of great trial and even greater temptation - for there is nothing more desirable and tempting for us than that which we cannot have.
Are such practices "mandatory"? Are they biblically required? They don't seem to be, but notice also that Jesus speaks of these practices as presumed; that is, they should already be regular spiritual practices. He never says nor does He suggest, however, that one no longer needs to do these things. But asking about "minimum requirements" suggests that we may be willing to do almost anything for the Lord ... but only what we must ... and only within reason. It is rather like a student approaching the teacher and asking what he or she can do "just to pass the course". No concern for an "A", and even less concern for the knowledge to be gained. Just wanna pass the course. No more.
Rather than tell us we no longer "must" do these things, Jesus speaks of praying, fasting, and charitable giving in a much more profound way. Was Jesus' journey in the wilderness mandated as a continuing practice of the Church? Well, Matthew tells of Jesus being "led up by the Spirit into the wilderness" (4:1). Are we now in any less of a "wilderness"? And Jesus seems also to have been "called out" for the purpose of confrontation with the evil one. The way it is written and the way it has been traditionally taught, it seems implied that it was a spiritual "show-down". "IF You are the Son of God ..."
But it is also written in such a way that Jesus is indeed being "led" by the Spirit of the Lord for the purpose of being "tempted", which seems to have come AFTER He had endured the forty-day fast and was weak with hunger. Jesus was "famished", as it is written, and must surely have been in a rather delicate state in which most of us would have stumbled.
Was it the evil one who was administering this test? Was the evil one really trying to figure out exactly who he was dealing with? Some say yes; others say no, but they say "no" in the tradition of Abraham being called forward to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac. The Lord God Himself needed to know something about Abraham. It was the Spirit of the Lord who led Jesus into the wilderness; He had not been "summoned" by the evil one, so the temptation had to be according to the Lord's own purposes; not Satan's. What Satan knows or is even entitled to know is inconsequential.
You and I do not have to figure this out, but there is something we must be mindful of as we enter into this forty-day journey of Lent that precedes Easter. We must be mindful that the evil one will tempt us, but the Lord our God may test us - but not beyond our capacity to endure. This is a crazy world that offers up all kinds of deceitful comforts, things we embrace rather easily as "normal". Some are good, of course, and don't seem harmful but some are spiritually questionable not because they are inherently so but because of the dominant place we allow such things in our lives. It could well be that whenever we choose to pursue personal comfort, security, and happiness for ourselves and for those whom we love, our fidelity to the Lord our God is called into question. Perhaps it is that the Almighty Himself begins to wonder whether we can be trusted with what He means to impart to us.
Prayer, fasting, and charitable giving are spiritual disciplines of the Church, but they are also intensely personal choices you and I must make not only during the season of Lent but each and every day when we are called to decide to "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15), the same challenge Joshua put forth to the people of the Lord - to serve the "gods" of their past or to serve the One, True, and Living God who calls us forward into His future: "'For I know the thoughts that I think toward you', says the Lord [through His prophet Jeremiah]; 'thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.'" Jeremiah 29:11-13
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will forever be. Amen.
Within a Lenten context of Jesus' lesson, the question is not what or even whether we are giving UP something for Lent. Perhaps the more appropriate question for disciples and for the Church as the Body of Christ should be about what we are GIVING for Lent.
Jesus speaks of "giving alms" which is the language of charitable giving to the poor, and He speaks clearly of fasting and praying as well. He does not seem to give one priority over another, but rather speaks of each as of equal importance - none of which seems inclined toward personal benefit or personal achievement on any level. As a point in fact, Jesus clearly speaks of keeping such things rather quiet lest we endanger ourselves - and deny the Holy Father His due glory - by pursuing our own personal glory or individual achievement.
It is a common thing for Christians to speak of giving up something for Lent, but I have noticed a substantial degradation of these spiritual practices when we speak of them publicly as some grand sacrifice that many do not understand and do not see as even necessary. Even worse, we speak of "giving up _____ for Lent" as some grand personal achievement as we feebly attempt to "one-up" a fellow practitioner or judge whether another's sacrificial choice is adequate. When we do this, are we not "sounding the trumpet" or perhaps implicitly soliciting pity if not admiration - "like the hypocrites" - when we do such things so publicly?
In the historic Church, Lent was a time of preparation for new catechumens; new Christians who were preparing and being prepared for baptism on Easter into the Church, the Covenant, and a life of discipleship. For the catechumen, it was not a matter of "personal" salvation or receiving a "personal" Lord and Savior, as intensely personal as the journey must have surely been; it was a time to "count the cost" of choosing to follow Jesus. It was a time of preparation for a much larger and broader application within the Holy Church. This time of intense preparation was reminiscent of Jesus' forty-day journey in the wilderness in preparation for His earthly ministry. It was not at all about Jesus "personally".
As such, Lent was necessarily a time of intense prayer, intense study, and intense fasting. It was a time of self-denial and ideally a time of a great spiritual awakening; and because of this, it must surely have also been a time of great trial and even greater temptation - for there is nothing more desirable and tempting for us than that which we cannot have.
Are such practices "mandatory"? Are they biblically required? They don't seem to be, but notice also that Jesus speaks of these practices as presumed; that is, they should already be regular spiritual practices. He never says nor does He suggest, however, that one no longer needs to do these things. But asking about "minimum requirements" suggests that we may be willing to do almost anything for the Lord ... but only what we must ... and only within reason. It is rather like a student approaching the teacher and asking what he or she can do "just to pass the course". No concern for an "A", and even less concern for the knowledge to be gained. Just wanna pass the course. No more.
Rather than tell us we no longer "must" do these things, Jesus speaks of praying, fasting, and charitable giving in a much more profound way. Was Jesus' journey in the wilderness mandated as a continuing practice of the Church? Well, Matthew tells of Jesus being "led up by the Spirit into the wilderness" (4:1). Are we now in any less of a "wilderness"? And Jesus seems also to have been "called out" for the purpose of confrontation with the evil one. The way it is written and the way it has been traditionally taught, it seems implied that it was a spiritual "show-down". "IF You are the Son of God ..."
But it is also written in such a way that Jesus is indeed being "led" by the Spirit of the Lord for the purpose of being "tempted", which seems to have come AFTER He had endured the forty-day fast and was weak with hunger. Jesus was "famished", as it is written, and must surely have been in a rather delicate state in which most of us would have stumbled.
Was it the evil one who was administering this test? Was the evil one really trying to figure out exactly who he was dealing with? Some say yes; others say no, but they say "no" in the tradition of Abraham being called forward to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac. The Lord God Himself needed to know something about Abraham. It was the Spirit of the Lord who led Jesus into the wilderness; He had not been "summoned" by the evil one, so the temptation had to be according to the Lord's own purposes; not Satan's. What Satan knows or is even entitled to know is inconsequential.
You and I do not have to figure this out, but there is something we must be mindful of as we enter into this forty-day journey of Lent that precedes Easter. We must be mindful that the evil one will tempt us, but the Lord our God may test us - but not beyond our capacity to endure. This is a crazy world that offers up all kinds of deceitful comforts, things we embrace rather easily as "normal". Some are good, of course, and don't seem harmful but some are spiritually questionable not because they are inherently so but because of the dominant place we allow such things in our lives. It could well be that whenever we choose to pursue personal comfort, security, and happiness for ourselves and for those whom we love, our fidelity to the Lord our God is called into question. Perhaps it is that the Almighty Himself begins to wonder whether we can be trusted with what He means to impart to us.
Prayer, fasting, and charitable giving are spiritual disciplines of the Church, but they are also intensely personal choices you and I must make not only during the season of Lent but each and every day when we are called to decide to "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15), the same challenge Joshua put forth to the people of the Lord - to serve the "gods" of their past or to serve the One, True, and Living God who calls us forward into His future: "'For I know the thoughts that I think toward you', says the Lord [through His prophet Jeremiah]; 'thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.'" Jeremiah 29:11-13
In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and will forever be. Amen.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
To What End?
The retired UM bishops' statement of protest against the Book of Discipline (ostensibly taking exception to only one, small segment of the entire book) is a shameful example of precisely what is wrong within the United Methodist Church and within the hearts of believers who try to make a theological case without scriptural reference but choose instead to rely on the worldly wisdom of the contemporary age. Of course we will not always agree on matters of human opinion because we all come from different backgrounds and different experiences. When it comes to matters of scriptural authority, however, the Bible must stand as the final word to break all ties just as church governance must depend on the final authority of the Discipline to keep the local church from going in too many different directions and causing nothing but confusion and hard feelings. In both instances these sources help to keep us united and focused but cannot serve these purposes if we do not take the Bible seriously, reject it as "antiquated", or worse; grant to ourselves authority to edit holy writ.
What is most profoundly disappointing, however, are the statements from some active bishops who have publicly expressed support for the sentiments of the retired bishops but nevertheless insist upon the authority of the Discipline without bothering to mention that the Discipline itself derives its authority from the Holy Scripture. The Bible is not justified by the Discipline. Rather, the Discipline can only be justified by the Holy Word.
Yet there is a continued call for "holy conferencing" to further discuss an issue that has been, in my humble opinion and according to the written Word, divinely settled. All are welcome, yet all are called to repentance. All are called to turn away from a life of self-indulgence and self-fulfillment, so what is left to conference about? I do grieve that homosexuality has come to be labeled the "mother of all sins", but I grieve even more that some elements within the United Methodist Church - especially those in positions of authority - seem determined to redefine sin altogether to a more secular notion of feel-good theology in which the pursuit of personal happiness trumps Jesus' clear call to deny oneself and follow Him.
There is nothing more to discuss. There is no new ground to be broken, and there is no "new" scripture or revelation that will shed new light. Homosexual conduct was denounced long ago; when did it become ok and where in Scripture is this reference? We have the Word of the Lord to inform us, to feed us, to sustain us, and to teach and correct us; it "contains ALL things necessary to salvation".
How dare we reach a point in which we declare by "holy conferencing" that the "manna" is no longer adequate or even desired (Numbers 11), remembering instead the "good ol' days" before the Lord justified us and called us His own?
What is most profoundly disappointing, however, are the statements from some active bishops who have publicly expressed support for the sentiments of the retired bishops but nevertheless insist upon the authority of the Discipline without bothering to mention that the Discipline itself derives its authority from the Holy Scripture. The Bible is not justified by the Discipline. Rather, the Discipline can only be justified by the Holy Word.
Yet there is a continued call for "holy conferencing" to further discuss an issue that has been, in my humble opinion and according to the written Word, divinely settled. All are welcome, yet all are called to repentance. All are called to turn away from a life of self-indulgence and self-fulfillment, so what is left to conference about? I do grieve that homosexuality has come to be labeled the "mother of all sins", but I grieve even more that some elements within the United Methodist Church - especially those in positions of authority - seem determined to redefine sin altogether to a more secular notion of feel-good theology in which the pursuit of personal happiness trumps Jesus' clear call to deny oneself and follow Him.
There is nothing more to discuss. There is no new ground to be broken, and there is no "new" scripture or revelation that will shed new light. Homosexual conduct was denounced long ago; when did it become ok and where in Scripture is this reference? We have the Word of the Lord to inform us, to feed us, to sustain us, and to teach and correct us; it "contains ALL things necessary to salvation".
How dare we reach a point in which we declare by "holy conferencing" that the "manna" is no longer adequate or even desired (Numbers 11), remembering instead the "good ol' days" before the Lord justified us and called us His own?
Sunday, March 06, 2011
We Confess
Ephesians 4:1-16
John 17:20-23
"There is hope. God is raising up men and women in the Methodist church that are being faithful to Jesus and His kingdom. They are embracing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, that Jesus Christ is fully God and He alone is the way of salvation, that God desires holiness and that He wants all the nations to hear His gospel." Arminiantoday.blogspot.com
Unity in faith, being one in Christ and with one another, sounds wonderful and wonderfully idealistic. This is the biblical principle expressed by St. Paul to the Ephesians but more importantly, it is the prayer of Jesus Himself that in order for us to be one in Him and in the Holy Father, we must necessarily be one in each other. We must be of the same mind and united in faith, but we must also be mindful of the divine reality of individual gifts we are all given so that the Church as the Body of Christ can grow in discipleship to the glory of our heavenly Father.
Idealistic this all is, but in reality it is hardly a true portrait of the genuine condition of the Church. We are not allowed to "sup" at the Roman Catholic table of the Lord's Supper, and we cannot join many Baptist or Church of Christ churches as baptized Christians because many of these do not recognize any baptism outside of their own which has as much to do with their own understanding of the "ordinance" that requires a verbal confession of faith AND total submersion rather than the pouring or sprinkling of water.
But we are Wesleyan Methodists ideally united in our doctrinal standards and our understanding of discipleship that has as much to do with the pursuit of personal holiness as with social holiness, which is to say that we understand and embrace the duties and responsibilities we have outside of our own personal spiritual journey. And within all this is the understanding that our final measure of holiness is defined by our understanding of the authority of Holy Scripture. We must decide whether we accept the Bible as the "tie-breaker" when we cannot agree on anything else.
But even this basic principle is not as easy as it sounds because among this very group, there is disagreement about whether or not we are truly prohibited from eating certain meats. A seemingly minor point we've had a little fun with, but it is still a point of disagreement that goes to the core of the authority of Scripture when we each decide for ourselves what is and what is not authoritative. Though this particular point seems insignificant on the surface, it is only one of so many other points throughout what has been deemed "holy" and "canonical" - that is, "complete" and "authoritative" - by the historic church and scripturally discounted - OR - justified, ironically, by the same Scripture.
Then we might make some innocuous statement of faith by which we are united in Christ. John Wesley himself insisted that "true religion is the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus", so we seem to be on the right track. Doctrinal disputes arise, however, when we cannot agree on one basic - but profound - principle of Christianity: "love". The truth is we don't really know what this word means, yet it is foundational! We confuse "love" with "lust", and I do not mean "lust" in exclusive terms of sexual ethics, conduct, and behavior. "Lust" is more appropriately related to "personal desire" and is applicable to anything we will choose to pursue INSTEAD of holiness.
Finally, when it comes to "unity" in Christ and when we speak so eloquently of being one with each other, united in love and faith, what we really seem to mean is that unity can only be achieved if others will surrender their own beliefs and submit to ours. That, by and large, is what we mean when we say "unity". And in my humble opinion, it is then when we are as far and away from the Lord as we can possibly be and will not be reconciled with Him until we can get past and over ourselves!
So what to do? How do we move beyond all these things that separate us? How can we sit down to a meal of pork chops and catfish? How do we reconcile with those who violate the traditional understanding of sexual ethics by living with and employing a whole new standard that seems entirely incompatible with Scripture but is perversely justified by a very loose interpretation - or a total disregard - of that same Scripture - all in the name of "grace"?
Notice that Jesus did not simply demand unity among His disciples; He PRAYED to the Father for the unity that would be necessary for the sake of the Church He would call forth. So the obvious answer seems to be prayer; honest, earnest, soul-searching, open, genuine, tears-inducing, personal submission prayer. But our prayers must not be entered into with our own agendas and itineraries, and we must take great pains to avoid entering into a time of prayer in which we are determined to influence the Lord by our fancy words and eloquent arguments.
We must be willing to enter into a time of prayer with NO AGENDA - AND - with a willingness to believe, accept, and respect that the answer we receive might not be compatible with our personal and long-held beliefs. If we enter into prayer with a preset notion that the Lord already agrees with us or can be convinced to go against what is clearly "written for our edification", then we probably need not bother at all.
The greatest confession we can make to our Holy God is to kneel before Him and "be still"; that is, speak no words. Ask nothing. Request nothing. Certainly demand nothing. And above all else, dare not presume to think the Lord is waiting to act only according to what we bring to Him.
This is the only way faithful United Methodist men and women will rise up and honestly face the challenges of an age that seeks instant gratification and self-will. It is not about "restoring Methodism" or "rethinking Church" or any other quip that can fit on a bumper sticker. It is not even about restoring traditional, conservative Church teachings. It is about taking the Bible at its own Word and coming to terms with the reality that the Lord does not always agree with us but, rather, that we must necessarily agree with the Lord perhaps especially when we do not understand. After all, is this not the entire point?
John 17:20-23
"There is hope. God is raising up men and women in the Methodist church that are being faithful to Jesus and His kingdom. They are embracing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, that Jesus Christ is fully God and He alone is the way of salvation, that God desires holiness and that He wants all the nations to hear His gospel." Arminiantoday.blogspot.com
Unity in faith, being one in Christ and with one another, sounds wonderful and wonderfully idealistic. This is the biblical principle expressed by St. Paul to the Ephesians but more importantly, it is the prayer of Jesus Himself that in order for us to be one in Him and in the Holy Father, we must necessarily be one in each other. We must be of the same mind and united in faith, but we must also be mindful of the divine reality of individual gifts we are all given so that the Church as the Body of Christ can grow in discipleship to the glory of our heavenly Father.
Idealistic this all is, but in reality it is hardly a true portrait of the genuine condition of the Church. We are not allowed to "sup" at the Roman Catholic table of the Lord's Supper, and we cannot join many Baptist or Church of Christ churches as baptized Christians because many of these do not recognize any baptism outside of their own which has as much to do with their own understanding of the "ordinance" that requires a verbal confession of faith AND total submersion rather than the pouring or sprinkling of water.
But we are Wesleyan Methodists ideally united in our doctrinal standards and our understanding of discipleship that has as much to do with the pursuit of personal holiness as with social holiness, which is to say that we understand and embrace the duties and responsibilities we have outside of our own personal spiritual journey. And within all this is the understanding that our final measure of holiness is defined by our understanding of the authority of Holy Scripture. We must decide whether we accept the Bible as the "tie-breaker" when we cannot agree on anything else.
But even this basic principle is not as easy as it sounds because among this very group, there is disagreement about whether or not we are truly prohibited from eating certain meats. A seemingly minor point we've had a little fun with, but it is still a point of disagreement that goes to the core of the authority of Scripture when we each decide for ourselves what is and what is not authoritative. Though this particular point seems insignificant on the surface, it is only one of so many other points throughout what has been deemed "holy" and "canonical" - that is, "complete" and "authoritative" - by the historic church and scripturally discounted - OR - justified, ironically, by the same Scripture.
Then we might make some innocuous statement of faith by which we are united in Christ. John Wesley himself insisted that "true religion is the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus", so we seem to be on the right track. Doctrinal disputes arise, however, when we cannot agree on one basic - but profound - principle of Christianity: "love". The truth is we don't really know what this word means, yet it is foundational! We confuse "love" with "lust", and I do not mean "lust" in exclusive terms of sexual ethics, conduct, and behavior. "Lust" is more appropriately related to "personal desire" and is applicable to anything we will choose to pursue INSTEAD of holiness.
Finally, when it comes to "unity" in Christ and when we speak so eloquently of being one with each other, united in love and faith, what we really seem to mean is that unity can only be achieved if others will surrender their own beliefs and submit to ours. That, by and large, is what we mean when we say "unity". And in my humble opinion, it is then when we are as far and away from the Lord as we can possibly be and will not be reconciled with Him until we can get past and over ourselves!
So what to do? How do we move beyond all these things that separate us? How can we sit down to a meal of pork chops and catfish? How do we reconcile with those who violate the traditional understanding of sexual ethics by living with and employing a whole new standard that seems entirely incompatible with Scripture but is perversely justified by a very loose interpretation - or a total disregard - of that same Scripture - all in the name of "grace"?
Notice that Jesus did not simply demand unity among His disciples; He PRAYED to the Father for the unity that would be necessary for the sake of the Church He would call forth. So the obvious answer seems to be prayer; honest, earnest, soul-searching, open, genuine, tears-inducing, personal submission prayer. But our prayers must not be entered into with our own agendas and itineraries, and we must take great pains to avoid entering into a time of prayer in which we are determined to influence the Lord by our fancy words and eloquent arguments.
We must be willing to enter into a time of prayer with NO AGENDA - AND - with a willingness to believe, accept, and respect that the answer we receive might not be compatible with our personal and long-held beliefs. If we enter into prayer with a preset notion that the Lord already agrees with us or can be convinced to go against what is clearly "written for our edification", then we probably need not bother at all.
The greatest confession we can make to our Holy God is to kneel before Him and "be still"; that is, speak no words. Ask nothing. Request nothing. Certainly demand nothing. And above all else, dare not presume to think the Lord is waiting to act only according to what we bring to Him.
This is the only way faithful United Methodist men and women will rise up and honestly face the challenges of an age that seeks instant gratification and self-will. It is not about "restoring Methodism" or "rethinking Church" or any other quip that can fit on a bumper sticker. It is not even about restoring traditional, conservative Church teachings. It is about taking the Bible at its own Word and coming to terms with the reality that the Lord does not always agree with us but, rather, that we must necessarily agree with the Lord perhaps especially when we do not understand. After all, is this not the entire point?
Who are we, really?
2 Peter 1:16-21
Matthew 17:1-9
I don't remember if it was during the 60's or the 70's that the big thing was to "find yourself", but I will also grant that many who were young, active, and coming of age during these tumultuous times might be inclined to say there is not a lot they remember - or want to remember! These were some challenging times because the entire nation was in such upheaval, and it became a challenge to trust the US government after we had our eyes opened perhaps for the first time and discovered exactly what our government was capable of.
It was also during this time when mainstream Christianity began to lose its footing, and many began to challenge the authority of the Church. It could have been just as simple as challenging all authority in general, but it was a legitimate challenge because it seemed clear that whether we were talking about the Church or the government, leaders of these institutions had failed and betrayed their charges. They discovered that heavy-handed tactics would no longer work. People were no longer willing to blindly believe or trust just because they were "supposed to". Threats were ignored, and ultimatums were laughed at. It seemed to be that the entire nation was trying to "find" itself because what we had previously known to be true seemed, well, not so true after all.
And it was forgotten that in the midst of this chaos, the Lord was still sitting on His throne. Some had suggested this was a period in which the Lord chose to turn His back on America, but such a statement could not stand in the reality of the Civil Rights Movement. It was the right and just thing that was long overdue, and Dr. King's entire message and ministry were based almost entirely on the Gospel of the Lord. And because Dr. King refused to be moved by anyone or anything other than the Gospel, a nation was transformed. Tragically his life was cut short - by human standards - and his message got hijacked by political opportunists, but the Lord is still on His throne.
Dr. King's untimely death left a power vacuum that was virtually impossible to fill because as important as he was to the Civil Rights Movement and to that particular period in American history, he was not the Lord. Indeed he never claimed to be, but people tend to either marginalize or elevate persons of social significance according to their usefulness and the perceptions of the people. In Dr. King's case he was revered - and feared. He was a powerfully dynamic speaker who "moved mountains" with his words, and people responded positively AND negatively.
It was just not possible to be ambivalent about Dr. Martin Luther King. Those who did not consider him a "threat" most likely elevated Dr. King to near-messianic status. Strangely enough, as much as Dr. King talked about the Lord, the Gospel, and Divine Justice, society in general did not really make the connection because there was still a clear distinction between the ideal of Divine Justice and the reality of social justice. This distinction is made even today because human society makes its own rules according to its own standards as to what it deems "just" and "right", divine principles notwithstanding.
So there may be a reasonable parallel with Jesus' time, His disciples, AND His nemeses. Jesus spoke constantly about the principles of the Law and the Holy God who commanded and ordained the Law, and He made real connections between the life people knew and the ideal of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the end, however, it was clear that people - disciples and opponents alike - didn't really make the connection. If it is possible to put "too much" emphasis on Jesus the fully human person, this may have had a lot to do with how easily the masses turned on Him prior to His death.
It is perhaps no different today. We can talk about Jesus being THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life and we can quote the several NT Scripture passages that proclaim the salvation that comes from believing on His name, but these proclamations have no connection in any real way to our "real life" if this reality does not cause a real transformation in the way we think and act. Social justice is still relative to the dominant elements of society, and rules are made according to what sounds good to us at any particular time to fit any particular need; social justice defined by whichever way the political winds happen to be blowing.
In the post-9/11 America, for instance, social justice does not extend to persons of Middle-Eastern descent, particularly Muslims. The hope-filled social invitation and idealistic promise of the Statue of Liberty to the "poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free", the "wretched refuse", the "homeless and tempest-tossed" for whom the "lamp is lifted beside the golden door" - as an expression of the best of American idealism and Christian hospitality - seems no more the open invitation it once was but has been reduced instead to little more than a cheesy tourist attraction. There is, after all, this very serious - and very real - national security consideration that has a tendency to make us hostile rather than hospitable to foreigners and other outsiders. The realities of a hostile world have made us very afraid because we have learned to depend on the physical senses and trust the social realities that behold the hostility in its truest forms.
I am more convinced than ever that the Transfiguration of the Christ came at an important time not for Jesus Himself but, rather, for the Church which would soon be called forth. The world - which was no more or less hostile than now - still held the potential for overwhelming those who would choose to follow Jesus to the very end. It is interesting to note St. Augustine's commentary on the Lord's glorified garments as an analogy of the Church itself. He wrote of the Transfiguration: "His garments are a type of His Church. For garments fall unless they are held up by the One who wears them" (Sermon 78.2).
This was an important moment in the lives of Jesus' disciples because of what precedes this moment. Recall that in Matthew 16 Jesus had foretold of His coming arrest and crucifixion - but the disciples did not seem to hear "resurrection". Peter is not prepared to accept this certain reality and tries to pull Jesus aside to call Him on it, but he is rebuked rather harshly by Jesus when he is told that he is much too mindful of "human" things rather than on the things of the Lord. In the language of the Church AND for the sake of the Church, this is a bona fide threat that undercuts the very foundation of the divine nature of the Body of Christ. Being more mindful of "human" things rather than Godly things; that is, being more mindful of our own will and our own desires and our own likes and dislikes rather than the will of the Lord, threatens the spiritual integrity and the moral authority of the institution itself.
Could it perhaps be that the Church, the very Body of Christ Himself, was in danger until this profound moment when the fullness of the glory of the Lord our God was manifest in the eyes of these few disciples, at least one of whom would later write, "We ourselves heard this Voice come from heaven while we were with Him on the holy mountain" (2 Peter 1:18)? And could it be that the fullness of the glory of the Lord is manifest, fulfilled, and perfected in Christ the Covenant by the presence of the Law in Moses and the prophets in Elijah? And could it be that this fullness which can hardly be adequately described in human language is the fullness so lacking in the Church today?
Yes, yes, and yes, but this is not all there is to it. Peter writes of this moment yet speaks only of the Voice that was so clearly heard. He did not describe a vision even though we are offered Matthew's vision that still cannot be fully understood. Why? It is because this is the fullest vision of the Lord's glory that cannot be comprehended with limited human senses. It is a vision that can only be approached with intense respect and trembling and faith. It is a vision offered only to those willing to look beyond their physical senses. It is a vision only to those who realize that the human Jesus, real though He was, is not the "whole" Christ who is glorified in the Lord God and in whom the Lord God Himself is glorified.
It is the same way we must learn to identify and to be identified. We can take measures to change our physical appearances and we can make such drastic changes that we would not be recognized by those who know us intimately, but none of these changes has anything to do with who we really are, who we choose to be, and how we choose to be known. But before we can embrace this true reality of who we really are, we must be able to speak of an incomprehensible vision that will judge us "not by the color of our skin" or even "by the content of our character". The truest vision of who we are in Christ Jesus is by the measure of our faith and our willingness to see the Lord as He truly is - not as we would wish Him to be.
Such a concept challenges our physical limitations to the very core, but the spiritual vision that is borne only of faith is the method and the means by which we must act, by which we must believe, and by which we must truly see not only ourselves and our Lord, but also our "neighbor". It is Christianity at its very core. It is Christ in His fullness and in the glory of Almighty God our Father. AMEN.
Matthew 17:1-9
I don't remember if it was during the 60's or the 70's that the big thing was to "find yourself", but I will also grant that many who were young, active, and coming of age during these tumultuous times might be inclined to say there is not a lot they remember - or want to remember! These were some challenging times because the entire nation was in such upheaval, and it became a challenge to trust the US government after we had our eyes opened perhaps for the first time and discovered exactly what our government was capable of.
It was also during this time when mainstream Christianity began to lose its footing, and many began to challenge the authority of the Church. It could have been just as simple as challenging all authority in general, but it was a legitimate challenge because it seemed clear that whether we were talking about the Church or the government, leaders of these institutions had failed and betrayed their charges. They discovered that heavy-handed tactics would no longer work. People were no longer willing to blindly believe or trust just because they were "supposed to". Threats were ignored, and ultimatums were laughed at. It seemed to be that the entire nation was trying to "find" itself because what we had previously known to be true seemed, well, not so true after all.
And it was forgotten that in the midst of this chaos, the Lord was still sitting on His throne. Some had suggested this was a period in which the Lord chose to turn His back on America, but such a statement could not stand in the reality of the Civil Rights Movement. It was the right and just thing that was long overdue, and Dr. King's entire message and ministry were based almost entirely on the Gospel of the Lord. And because Dr. King refused to be moved by anyone or anything other than the Gospel, a nation was transformed. Tragically his life was cut short - by human standards - and his message got hijacked by political opportunists, but the Lord is still on His throne.
Dr. King's untimely death left a power vacuum that was virtually impossible to fill because as important as he was to the Civil Rights Movement and to that particular period in American history, he was not the Lord. Indeed he never claimed to be, but people tend to either marginalize or elevate persons of social significance according to their usefulness and the perceptions of the people. In Dr. King's case he was revered - and feared. He was a powerfully dynamic speaker who "moved mountains" with his words, and people responded positively AND negatively.
It was just not possible to be ambivalent about Dr. Martin Luther King. Those who did not consider him a "threat" most likely elevated Dr. King to near-messianic status. Strangely enough, as much as Dr. King talked about the Lord, the Gospel, and Divine Justice, society in general did not really make the connection because there was still a clear distinction between the ideal of Divine Justice and the reality of social justice. This distinction is made even today because human society makes its own rules according to its own standards as to what it deems "just" and "right", divine principles notwithstanding.
So there may be a reasonable parallel with Jesus' time, His disciples, AND His nemeses. Jesus spoke constantly about the principles of the Law and the Holy God who commanded and ordained the Law, and He made real connections between the life people knew and the ideal of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the end, however, it was clear that people - disciples and opponents alike - didn't really make the connection. If it is possible to put "too much" emphasis on Jesus the fully human person, this may have had a lot to do with how easily the masses turned on Him prior to His death.
It is perhaps no different today. We can talk about Jesus being THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life and we can quote the several NT Scripture passages that proclaim the salvation that comes from believing on His name, but these proclamations have no connection in any real way to our "real life" if this reality does not cause a real transformation in the way we think and act. Social justice is still relative to the dominant elements of society, and rules are made according to what sounds good to us at any particular time to fit any particular need; social justice defined by whichever way the political winds happen to be blowing.
In the post-9/11 America, for instance, social justice does not extend to persons of Middle-Eastern descent, particularly Muslims. The hope-filled social invitation and idealistic promise of the Statue of Liberty to the "poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free", the "wretched refuse", the "homeless and tempest-tossed" for whom the "lamp is lifted beside the golden door" - as an expression of the best of American idealism and Christian hospitality - seems no more the open invitation it once was but has been reduced instead to little more than a cheesy tourist attraction. There is, after all, this very serious - and very real - national security consideration that has a tendency to make us hostile rather than hospitable to foreigners and other outsiders. The realities of a hostile world have made us very afraid because we have learned to depend on the physical senses and trust the social realities that behold the hostility in its truest forms.
I am more convinced than ever that the Transfiguration of the Christ came at an important time not for Jesus Himself but, rather, for the Church which would soon be called forth. The world - which was no more or less hostile than now - still held the potential for overwhelming those who would choose to follow Jesus to the very end. It is interesting to note St. Augustine's commentary on the Lord's glorified garments as an analogy of the Church itself. He wrote of the Transfiguration: "His garments are a type of His Church. For garments fall unless they are held up by the One who wears them" (Sermon 78.2).
This was an important moment in the lives of Jesus' disciples because of what precedes this moment. Recall that in Matthew 16 Jesus had foretold of His coming arrest and crucifixion - but the disciples did not seem to hear "resurrection". Peter is not prepared to accept this certain reality and tries to pull Jesus aside to call Him on it, but he is rebuked rather harshly by Jesus when he is told that he is much too mindful of "human" things rather than on the things of the Lord. In the language of the Church AND for the sake of the Church, this is a bona fide threat that undercuts the very foundation of the divine nature of the Body of Christ. Being more mindful of "human" things rather than Godly things; that is, being more mindful of our own will and our own desires and our own likes and dislikes rather than the will of the Lord, threatens the spiritual integrity and the moral authority of the institution itself.
Could it perhaps be that the Church, the very Body of Christ Himself, was in danger until this profound moment when the fullness of the glory of the Lord our God was manifest in the eyes of these few disciples, at least one of whom would later write, "We ourselves heard this Voice come from heaven while we were with Him on the holy mountain" (2 Peter 1:18)? And could it be that the fullness of the glory of the Lord is manifest, fulfilled, and perfected in Christ the Covenant by the presence of the Law in Moses and the prophets in Elijah? And could it be that this fullness which can hardly be adequately described in human language is the fullness so lacking in the Church today?
Yes, yes, and yes, but this is not all there is to it. Peter writes of this moment yet speaks only of the Voice that was so clearly heard. He did not describe a vision even though we are offered Matthew's vision that still cannot be fully understood. Why? It is because this is the fullest vision of the Lord's glory that cannot be comprehended with limited human senses. It is a vision that can only be approached with intense respect and trembling and faith. It is a vision offered only to those willing to look beyond their physical senses. It is a vision only to those who realize that the human Jesus, real though He was, is not the "whole" Christ who is glorified in the Lord God and in whom the Lord God Himself is glorified.
It is the same way we must learn to identify and to be identified. We can take measures to change our physical appearances and we can make such drastic changes that we would not be recognized by those who know us intimately, but none of these changes has anything to do with who we really are, who we choose to be, and how we choose to be known. But before we can embrace this true reality of who we really are, we must be able to speak of an incomprehensible vision that will judge us "not by the color of our skin" or even "by the content of our character". The truest vision of who we are in Christ Jesus is by the measure of our faith and our willingness to see the Lord as He truly is - not as we would wish Him to be.
Such a concept challenges our physical limitations to the very core, but the spiritual vision that is borne only of faith is the method and the means by which we must act, by which we must believe, and by which we must truly see not only ourselves and our Lord, but also our "neighbor". It is Christianity at its very core. It is Christ in His fullness and in the glory of Almighty God our Father. AMEN.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Inside Out
1 Corinthians 2:14-3:9
Watching a movie recently about the 1956 Montgomery AL bus boycott, which ultimately began the Civil Rights Movement, it occurred to me that in the two "sides" involved in the struggle against one another - or against a "system", depending on perspective - there was a risk of "loss" for each but from two different perspectives. One "side" felt like there was too much to lose and no discernable gain to make it worth standing up for what was right, while the other "side" had so much to gain that there was nothing worth keeping left to lose. Such differences in perspective actually define the gap that exists between the True Mission that is the Church and ambivalent worship attendance.
There are many and varied conditions within the American church that have continually contributed to an overall decline in worship attendance, but there is only one dominant condition that defines the difference between the "vital" and compelling Body of Christ - and a building with a cross; and that condition is determined by whether we think we have "too much to lose" - or whether we realize the true value of what is really at stake. And it sometimes seems as though we lose sight of what is at stake because we become comfortable within a self-created Christian subculture that has all the language and idiosyncrasies of pop-Christian culture but with a distinctive "worldly" flavor that is, ironically, familiar to those on the inside but completely foreign to those on the outside.
I thought of all this in light of a book I'm currently reading as well as Jesus' prayer to the Holy Father about His disciples as recorded in John 17:15: "I do not pray that You should take them out of world, but that You should keep them from the evil one." And the book I'm reading is entitled, "They like Jesus but not the Church" by Dan Kimball. Add to this mix an article in yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that featured a 10-year-old church that was apparently founded for people who do not like The Church. Among the attributes of this "non-church" church were "great programs" such as music, relevant preaching, Bible studies, etc. All the markings of "church" but ostensibly designed for people who don't like The Church.
Once we stir in everything, then we read St. Paul's admonition to the Corinthian church that he could not speak to "as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh" because in the midst of all their internal conflicts and arguments, they had all the makings and the markings of a secular sub-culture, yet they called themselves "Christians". "For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving according to human inclinations?"
Yes they were. Yes we are. And yes, so are the "non-church" church people who are in the process of creating for themselves a unique subculture that, like all other churches and denominations, will welcome people in but works harder at sustaining the internal Christian subculture that does little to promote the missional nature of the Body of Christ which is undeniably "the" Church - not "several" - and certainly not a building.
If the Church IS the Body of Christ, the Christ who is so compelling, then it cannot be confined to a building - it must by definition be active and mobile. It must necessarily GO rather than WAIT. It must STAND FIRM rather than SIT QUIETLY. It must not be afraid of the dominant secular culture, but it must also be distinct from that culture.
Internal programs and personal preferences are among the many important elements that make up the life of a church but if these programs are not designed toward Christian education - not indoctrination - and are not inclined toward mission work, toward teaching the faithful how to function in the world as the "salt" and "light" of Christ, then all that exists is an infrastructure that is self-sustaining and pleasing only to those who are inside. It is a foreign subculture that people on the outside do not understand. And if programs of self-sustenance or entertainment are the dominant elements of the life of a church, the church is falling flat and loses its integrity as a church and becomes more like a private chapel suitable only for those who "fit in".
Speaking to a pastor friend recently in another part of the state, he expressed to me that he might have been better off becoming a firefighter rather than a church pastor because he spends entirely too much of his time "fighting fires"! As we were talking, we both seemed to realize that internal problems are borne of an inactive community of believers who call themselves "Christians" but are not inclined toward "mission", the very nature of Christ Himself, which is to say that they spend entirely too much time looking inward - "navel gazing" - focusing only on their own problems and not nearly enough time looking outward "from the balcony". "Navel gazers" see only what concerns themselves; they do not see outwardly toward the "big picture" because, quite frankly, they don't care beyond themselves. This cannot - this MUST NOT - be the Church, the Body of Christ.
The problem with "mission" is that most Christians have come to understand "mission" as going into a jungle and trying to witness to cannibals! We think in terms of the missional church in Unalaska that we have supported, and we have visions of all sorts of overseas missions in strange lands with strange customs and even stranger cultures and languages. We can easily see that many, if not most, of us are not geared or even gifted toward that kind of life. So we write 'em a check and call it good. There is nothing wrong with writing a check if this is all one is capable of.
At the worship service conclusion we jump into our cars and drive right through and into the greatest mission field we could ever hope to find, but we're driving so fast or are so focused on our destination - beating the Baptists to the buffet! - that we hardly notice the tons of folks with whom we share a common culture and a common language, but not a common Lord. Unlike the foreign missionaries, however, we don't try to appreciate who these people are and we don't care much for where they are or what they believe or even think; we care more than they should think and believe and speak as we do. We see it as our jobs, perhaps our "personal mission" to make these neighbors see things our way - and when they don't, we write them off as "lost". I don't think it ever occurs to us that they may be open to such interaction, but they don't understand our lingo or our subculture.
If you think I am pointing a finger here, you bet I am. STRAIGHT INTO THE MIRROR! It has occurred to me that far too many churches - and far too many pastors - have become so internally oriented that this is where we find the time to fight and to fuss and to worry about what is and what isn't, what we like and don't like, and we have all this time on our hands for "quarrelling" because we are not busy at all with the work of the Kingdom of Heaven; we are not at all about the mission of Christ, the mission to which we have been "saved" and called. Like the old saying goes, "idle time is the devil's playground, idle hands the devil's tools". And make no mistake; the devil is very busy IN the Church.
It may sound hopeless, but there is always hope where there is life and light because what does exist within the Christian subculture are "relationships", friendships that have been forged by a common cause, a common culture, a common language, a common Lord. The hope which exists - and will always exist - is that these existing relationships came from the same place and from the same hearts and from the same Lord as other relationships that are waiting to be developed. There are people out there who have no one. They don't need to be "saved"; they need to be loved. They need to know someone cares. And they will never know how deeply Christ cares until His followers step out and take a chance regardless of the risk.
My dear friends, these very people are the ones who are waiting for you and for me to finally "get it right", to finally come to understand what it really means to be the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" because they are quite literally dying from broken hearts, profound loneliness, and extreme poverty of spirit. They've heard about this Jesus, but they have yet to experience His true grace because they have yet to experience one of His true followers. They've probably met all sorts of Crusaders, Christian "soldiers", enforcers of the code and the faith, and they may well have been genuinely wounded by some, but they have yet to meet one of the "medics" of the Great Physician.
It is time. There never was a better time than right now. It is time for us as individuals and it is time for this church, this Body of Christ, to step outside of our flesh and into the Spirit of the Lord. It is time for us to take risks and put everything on the table. It is time to take what we know from inside this building and inside this sanctuary and turn it OUT! It is time for the world to meet Jesus the Christ - perhaps for the very first time. Through YOU. And through ME. We have nothing left to lose but the life we think we have gained. And we have everything to gain from the life we think we have to lose.
Watching a movie recently about the 1956 Montgomery AL bus boycott, which ultimately began the Civil Rights Movement, it occurred to me that in the two "sides" involved in the struggle against one another - or against a "system", depending on perspective - there was a risk of "loss" for each but from two different perspectives. One "side" felt like there was too much to lose and no discernable gain to make it worth standing up for what was right, while the other "side" had so much to gain that there was nothing worth keeping left to lose. Such differences in perspective actually define the gap that exists between the True Mission that is the Church and ambivalent worship attendance.
There are many and varied conditions within the American church that have continually contributed to an overall decline in worship attendance, but there is only one dominant condition that defines the difference between the "vital" and compelling Body of Christ - and a building with a cross; and that condition is determined by whether we think we have "too much to lose" - or whether we realize the true value of what is really at stake. And it sometimes seems as though we lose sight of what is at stake because we become comfortable within a self-created Christian subculture that has all the language and idiosyncrasies of pop-Christian culture but with a distinctive "worldly" flavor that is, ironically, familiar to those on the inside but completely foreign to those on the outside.
I thought of all this in light of a book I'm currently reading as well as Jesus' prayer to the Holy Father about His disciples as recorded in John 17:15: "I do not pray that You should take them out of world, but that You should keep them from the evil one." And the book I'm reading is entitled, "They like Jesus but not the Church" by Dan Kimball. Add to this mix an article in yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that featured a 10-year-old church that was apparently founded for people who do not like The Church. Among the attributes of this "non-church" church were "great programs" such as music, relevant preaching, Bible studies, etc. All the markings of "church" but ostensibly designed for people who don't like The Church.
Once we stir in everything, then we read St. Paul's admonition to the Corinthian church that he could not speak to "as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh" because in the midst of all their internal conflicts and arguments, they had all the makings and the markings of a secular sub-culture, yet they called themselves "Christians". "For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving according to human inclinations?"
Yes they were. Yes we are. And yes, so are the "non-church" church people who are in the process of creating for themselves a unique subculture that, like all other churches and denominations, will welcome people in but works harder at sustaining the internal Christian subculture that does little to promote the missional nature of the Body of Christ which is undeniably "the" Church - not "several" - and certainly not a building.
If the Church IS the Body of Christ, the Christ who is so compelling, then it cannot be confined to a building - it must by definition be active and mobile. It must necessarily GO rather than WAIT. It must STAND FIRM rather than SIT QUIETLY. It must not be afraid of the dominant secular culture, but it must also be distinct from that culture.
Internal programs and personal preferences are among the many important elements that make up the life of a church but if these programs are not designed toward Christian education - not indoctrination - and are not inclined toward mission work, toward teaching the faithful how to function in the world as the "salt" and "light" of Christ, then all that exists is an infrastructure that is self-sustaining and pleasing only to those who are inside. It is a foreign subculture that people on the outside do not understand. And if programs of self-sustenance or entertainment are the dominant elements of the life of a church, the church is falling flat and loses its integrity as a church and becomes more like a private chapel suitable only for those who "fit in".
Speaking to a pastor friend recently in another part of the state, he expressed to me that he might have been better off becoming a firefighter rather than a church pastor because he spends entirely too much of his time "fighting fires"! As we were talking, we both seemed to realize that internal problems are borne of an inactive community of believers who call themselves "Christians" but are not inclined toward "mission", the very nature of Christ Himself, which is to say that they spend entirely too much time looking inward - "navel gazing" - focusing only on their own problems and not nearly enough time looking outward "from the balcony". "Navel gazers" see only what concerns themselves; they do not see outwardly toward the "big picture" because, quite frankly, they don't care beyond themselves. This cannot - this MUST NOT - be the Church, the Body of Christ.
The problem with "mission" is that most Christians have come to understand "mission" as going into a jungle and trying to witness to cannibals! We think in terms of the missional church in Unalaska that we have supported, and we have visions of all sorts of overseas missions in strange lands with strange customs and even stranger cultures and languages. We can easily see that many, if not most, of us are not geared or even gifted toward that kind of life. So we write 'em a check and call it good. There is nothing wrong with writing a check if this is all one is capable of.
At the worship service conclusion we jump into our cars and drive right through and into the greatest mission field we could ever hope to find, but we're driving so fast or are so focused on our destination - beating the Baptists to the buffet! - that we hardly notice the tons of folks with whom we share a common culture and a common language, but not a common Lord. Unlike the foreign missionaries, however, we don't try to appreciate who these people are and we don't care much for where they are or what they believe or even think; we care more than they should think and believe and speak as we do. We see it as our jobs, perhaps our "personal mission" to make these neighbors see things our way - and when they don't, we write them off as "lost". I don't think it ever occurs to us that they may be open to such interaction, but they don't understand our lingo or our subculture.
If you think I am pointing a finger here, you bet I am. STRAIGHT INTO THE MIRROR! It has occurred to me that far too many churches - and far too many pastors - have become so internally oriented that this is where we find the time to fight and to fuss and to worry about what is and what isn't, what we like and don't like, and we have all this time on our hands for "quarrelling" because we are not busy at all with the work of the Kingdom of Heaven; we are not at all about the mission of Christ, the mission to which we have been "saved" and called. Like the old saying goes, "idle time is the devil's playground, idle hands the devil's tools". And make no mistake; the devil is very busy IN the Church.
It may sound hopeless, but there is always hope where there is life and light because what does exist within the Christian subculture are "relationships", friendships that have been forged by a common cause, a common culture, a common language, a common Lord. The hope which exists - and will always exist - is that these existing relationships came from the same place and from the same hearts and from the same Lord as other relationships that are waiting to be developed. There are people out there who have no one. They don't need to be "saved"; they need to be loved. They need to know someone cares. And they will never know how deeply Christ cares until His followers step out and take a chance regardless of the risk.
My dear friends, these very people are the ones who are waiting for you and for me to finally "get it right", to finally come to understand what it really means to be the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" because they are quite literally dying from broken hearts, profound loneliness, and extreme poverty of spirit. They've heard about this Jesus, but they have yet to experience His true grace because they have yet to experience one of His true followers. They've probably met all sorts of Crusaders, Christian "soldiers", enforcers of the code and the faith, and they may well have been genuinely wounded by some, but they have yet to meet one of the "medics" of the Great Physician.
It is time. There never was a better time than right now. It is time for us as individuals and it is time for this church, this Body of Christ, to step outside of our flesh and into the Spirit of the Lord. It is time for us to take risks and put everything on the table. It is time to take what we know from inside this building and inside this sanctuary and turn it OUT! It is time for the world to meet Jesus the Christ - perhaps for the very first time. Through YOU. And through ME. We have nothing left to lose but the life we think we have gained. And we have everything to gain from the life we think we have to lose.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Means of Grace III: Scripture Study
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Matthew 5:1-12
Every moment of every day we are teaching someone something, and every moment of every day we are learning something from someone - whether we are consciously aware or not. I think there can be no exception to this rule and I also think if there is an exception to this rule, there is a complete disconnect from reality. What we are teaching and what we are learning, however, is often the difference between what we know about our culture and the larger society in which we live - and what we know about the Lord. And what we know about the Lord is intimately and directly related to how much time and effort we invest in the study of Scripture.
Regardless of what we may think we know to be true, there is no one born "just knowing" anything. Those who have studied to become engineers, for instance, spent hours upon hours studying math and science. Those who studied to become attorneys invested at least as many hours studying the law. Those who study medicine invest a lifetime in the study, practice, and art of healing. This endeavor alone is, quite literally, the difference between life and death and requires mountains of books. These students and practitioners immerse themselves completely in these mountains of books in their devotion to preserving life and cheating death, the knowledge and faith in doing so coming from so many books and years of instruction.
There is one Book, however; actually a collection of books within one volume that teaches about Eternal Life and absolutely defeats death, the knowledge and faith coming from this one, single volume but also with years of instruction, a lifetime devotion. This collection of books is the single, most widely published volume in the entire world because it is the single, most widely purchased collection of books in the entire world. Ironically, it is also the single, most widely neglected collection of books in the entire world. This collection of books bound in a single volume is, of course, the Bible.
It is the Holy Scripture, the religious canon (or law), the very voice of the Living God. It is the divine Voice that tells the story of redemption from Genesis to The Revelation. It tells the many stories of human failure upon human failure, yet it also tells us the stories of how these same people - in spite of their failures - were able to reach far beyond their own human capacities. It teaches us through the failures of these same people throughout human history that in the midst of the most profound despair and the most colossal failures, we may still dare to have and to share hope.
Many contemporary interpretations have suggested that these books, written thousands of years ago, are little more than "antiquities" written specifically for people of "antiquity". There are suggestions that these books give us a glimpse of the past but have no real application for the present and no real use for the future.
Well, I happen to agree.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for all those who read it with preconceived expectations and personal demands.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those who are not willing to read with an open mind and an open heart.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those many who see no need to study the Scripture in fellowship as a supplement to private study and prayer.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those who are interested in no opinions or perspectives other than their own.
• And I absolutely agree that the Bible as a tool and as a means for spiritual transformation is useless to those who see no need for personal, spiritual transformation.
So what is the Bible good for? It is good for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient and equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
In the book, Mapping Christian Education, essayist and professor of educational ministry Elizabeth Caldwell, points to the process of Christian education as similar to that of "homemaking".
• The home is our sanctuary.
• It is our safe place.
• It is where we are most comfortable, where we are nurtured and corrected, where we are comforted and admonished.
• The home is where we are related, fed, and made whole.
• It is where we are intimately connected in spite of those things that may potentially separate us.
• The home is where we emphasize the connectedness rather than the divisiveness.
• The home is where guests are welcome and encouraged to make themselves "at home" as we strive to make them feel "at home" - that is "radical hospitality".
• Home is the place where "growing" is central and entirely dependent on the support structure and the values instilled.
• But the home is also the place in which habits are formed by experiential environments and learning models. This is to say, it must necessarily be where interaction - not pontification - is encouraged and practiced without fear and without reproach.
• Home is the place where every soul has a genuine stake in the nurture, support, and upkeep of the home.
It is by and through this process and environment of "homemaking" that the study of Scripture comes nearer to functioning as the "means of grace" disciples need most because this is where we should feel safe. We recognize our differences, but we also acknowledge that we are in the presence of our Master, our Teacher, and our Holy Father. We realize and appreciate His ultimate authority, but we also remember that Jesus loved to teach by parables. Why? Because He surely knew such parables would provoke questions but would also have real, practical application. He needed us to know that everyday living is everyday theology, that everything we do and everything we say is theological - that is, we are intimately connected with the Lord through His Word in daily living. Or we are not.
It is too bad that in efforts to "beat back" secular or liberal or humanist challenges to religious ideals and values, we have chosen to use the Bible as a "weapon" of force rather than as a "means of grace". While it is true enough, as written in 2 Timothy, that Scripture is divinely inspired specifically for "instruction and correction", it is equally true that the world is filled with people, Christians and non-Christians alike, who are victimized, mistreated, and oppressed - whether they are believers or not.
While Jesus seems to emphasize persecution for His followers at the hands of those who did then - and still do now - oppose Him, we should not overlook the many who suffer equally through oppression and loss. Clearly Jesus is teaching us something through these so-called "Beatitudes", and it is equally clear that as we are comforted by the Word we are also called forth by that same Word. The "inner" part of our being is being transformed by Scripture study, but the transformation must necessarily manifest itself in outward expression - to comfort those who mourn, to fill those who are thirsty and hungry, to be merciful toward those who do not know what mercy looks like.
It must necessarily be the same transformation which took place in the early Church after Pentecost when new believers "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42). In other words, new believers didn't just "make things up" as to whatever seemed best to suit their individual preferences - and as a result of this hunger and this faith, the Church flourished, and THOUSANDS were added to the ranks of the baptized faithful.
Jesus is making promises to those who will listen to Him but if we were to dare listen more carefully, we would hear Jesus saying that the time of fulfillment of these promises is much nearer than we might think - and that the point of fulfillment will come at the hands of the faithful whose outward expression of the inner transformation will burst forth! But if none of this comes about, if there is no inner transformation and no outward expression of such transformation, then the Bible is reduced to "ancient literature" and can be filed on a shelf near Plato's Republic ... useful and interesting, but not necessary.
I was recently trying to answer a theology question for an 11-year-old, and I have to say it was probably the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Not only did I have to adjust my language, but I finally had to realize there is no way that important question can be answered in one or two statements. It was a loaded theological question with broad implications. I finally came to realize it is ok for me to stop at a particular point in order to be age-appropriate, but the lesson must not stop there ... for this child OR for me because while the answer was adequate for the moment and the stage of spiritual development, it must also be a moment that moves into the next ... perpetually.
In order for the study of Scripture to serve as the necessary "means of grace", we have to be fully engaged not only in receiving but in connecting beyond ourselves. Grace comes only from the Lord - not from any book, not even the Bible. But the Bible is His instruction, His Law, His unmistakable Voice. Thinking, speaking, and acting outside of what is written for our edification and for the building up of the Holy Church means we are left with little else than to listen to other voices, many voices, conflicting voices ... until we are finally left confused and alienated; fully connected to the vain wisdom of the world, but alienated from the divine Voice and source of all wisdom.
Holy Scripture is our connection to our past, our present, our future - because it is our connection to our Lord. It is necessary for spiritual growth. Like Holy Communion and Confirmation, it is most appropriately shared not only for building up the individual disciple but also for building up and uniting the Church as the Body of Christ. It is by experiential learning - that is, interaction - that discipleship begins to make sense. It is where the journey of faith begins - within the Church - and it is where the journey of faith is passed from one generation to the next. Absent this intimate connection, the Gospel of the Lord, the Word of the Living God, is but one generation from extinction.
Everyone needs someone. I may not agree with each of you on a particular point of doctrine but I need you in order to continue to grow, and you need me for the same reason. But above all else, the unbelieving world needs the INFORMED and UNIFORM Body of Christ. One God, One Lord, One Word, One Church. To the Glory of our Holy God and Father and to the "comfort of those who mourn", to "fill those who are hungry for righteousness", through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.
Matthew 5:1-12
Every moment of every day we are teaching someone something, and every moment of every day we are learning something from someone - whether we are consciously aware or not. I think there can be no exception to this rule and I also think if there is an exception to this rule, there is a complete disconnect from reality. What we are teaching and what we are learning, however, is often the difference between what we know about our culture and the larger society in which we live - and what we know about the Lord. And what we know about the Lord is intimately and directly related to how much time and effort we invest in the study of Scripture.
Regardless of what we may think we know to be true, there is no one born "just knowing" anything. Those who have studied to become engineers, for instance, spent hours upon hours studying math and science. Those who studied to become attorneys invested at least as many hours studying the law. Those who study medicine invest a lifetime in the study, practice, and art of healing. This endeavor alone is, quite literally, the difference between life and death and requires mountains of books. These students and practitioners immerse themselves completely in these mountains of books in their devotion to preserving life and cheating death, the knowledge and faith in doing so coming from so many books and years of instruction.
There is one Book, however; actually a collection of books within one volume that teaches about Eternal Life and absolutely defeats death, the knowledge and faith coming from this one, single volume but also with years of instruction, a lifetime devotion. This collection of books is the single, most widely published volume in the entire world because it is the single, most widely purchased collection of books in the entire world. Ironically, it is also the single, most widely neglected collection of books in the entire world. This collection of books bound in a single volume is, of course, the Bible.
It is the Holy Scripture, the religious canon (or law), the very voice of the Living God. It is the divine Voice that tells the story of redemption from Genesis to The Revelation. It tells the many stories of human failure upon human failure, yet it also tells us the stories of how these same people - in spite of their failures - were able to reach far beyond their own human capacities. It teaches us through the failures of these same people throughout human history that in the midst of the most profound despair and the most colossal failures, we may still dare to have and to share hope.
Many contemporary interpretations have suggested that these books, written thousands of years ago, are little more than "antiquities" written specifically for people of "antiquity". There are suggestions that these books give us a glimpse of the past but have no real application for the present and no real use for the future.
Well, I happen to agree.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for all those who read it with preconceived expectations and personal demands.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those who are not willing to read with an open mind and an open heart.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those many who see no need to study the Scripture in fellowship as a supplement to private study and prayer.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those who are interested in no opinions or perspectives other than their own.
• And I absolutely agree that the Bible as a tool and as a means for spiritual transformation is useless to those who see no need for personal, spiritual transformation.
So what is the Bible good for? It is good for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient and equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
In the book, Mapping Christian Education, essayist and professor of educational ministry Elizabeth Caldwell, points to the process of Christian education as similar to that of "homemaking".
• The home is our sanctuary.
• It is our safe place.
• It is where we are most comfortable, where we are nurtured and corrected, where we are comforted and admonished.
• The home is where we are related, fed, and made whole.
• It is where we are intimately connected in spite of those things that may potentially separate us.
• The home is where we emphasize the connectedness rather than the divisiveness.
• The home is where guests are welcome and encouraged to make themselves "at home" as we strive to make them feel "at home" - that is "radical hospitality".
• Home is the place where "growing" is central and entirely dependent on the support structure and the values instilled.
• But the home is also the place in which habits are formed by experiential environments and learning models. This is to say, it must necessarily be where interaction - not pontification - is encouraged and practiced without fear and without reproach.
• Home is the place where every soul has a genuine stake in the nurture, support, and upkeep of the home.
It is by and through this process and environment of "homemaking" that the study of Scripture comes nearer to functioning as the "means of grace" disciples need most because this is where we should feel safe. We recognize our differences, but we also acknowledge that we are in the presence of our Master, our Teacher, and our Holy Father. We realize and appreciate His ultimate authority, but we also remember that Jesus loved to teach by parables. Why? Because He surely knew such parables would provoke questions but would also have real, practical application. He needed us to know that everyday living is everyday theology, that everything we do and everything we say is theological - that is, we are intimately connected with the Lord through His Word in daily living. Or we are not.
It is too bad that in efforts to "beat back" secular or liberal or humanist challenges to religious ideals and values, we have chosen to use the Bible as a "weapon" of force rather than as a "means of grace". While it is true enough, as written in 2 Timothy, that Scripture is divinely inspired specifically for "instruction and correction", it is equally true that the world is filled with people, Christians and non-Christians alike, who are victimized, mistreated, and oppressed - whether they are believers or not.
While Jesus seems to emphasize persecution for His followers at the hands of those who did then - and still do now - oppose Him, we should not overlook the many who suffer equally through oppression and loss. Clearly Jesus is teaching us something through these so-called "Beatitudes", and it is equally clear that as we are comforted by the Word we are also called forth by that same Word. The "inner" part of our being is being transformed by Scripture study, but the transformation must necessarily manifest itself in outward expression - to comfort those who mourn, to fill those who are thirsty and hungry, to be merciful toward those who do not know what mercy looks like.
It must necessarily be the same transformation which took place in the early Church after Pentecost when new believers "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42). In other words, new believers didn't just "make things up" as to whatever seemed best to suit their individual preferences - and as a result of this hunger and this faith, the Church flourished, and THOUSANDS were added to the ranks of the baptized faithful.
Jesus is making promises to those who will listen to Him but if we were to dare listen more carefully, we would hear Jesus saying that the time of fulfillment of these promises is much nearer than we might think - and that the point of fulfillment will come at the hands of the faithful whose outward expression of the inner transformation will burst forth! But if none of this comes about, if there is no inner transformation and no outward expression of such transformation, then the Bible is reduced to "ancient literature" and can be filed on a shelf near Plato's Republic ... useful and interesting, but not necessary.
I was recently trying to answer a theology question for an 11-year-old, and I have to say it was probably the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Not only did I have to adjust my language, but I finally had to realize there is no way that important question can be answered in one or two statements. It was a loaded theological question with broad implications. I finally came to realize it is ok for me to stop at a particular point in order to be age-appropriate, but the lesson must not stop there ... for this child OR for me because while the answer was adequate for the moment and the stage of spiritual development, it must also be a moment that moves into the next ... perpetually.
In order for the study of Scripture to serve as the necessary "means of grace", we have to be fully engaged not only in receiving but in connecting beyond ourselves. Grace comes only from the Lord - not from any book, not even the Bible. But the Bible is His instruction, His Law, His unmistakable Voice. Thinking, speaking, and acting outside of what is written for our edification and for the building up of the Holy Church means we are left with little else than to listen to other voices, many voices, conflicting voices ... until we are finally left confused and alienated; fully connected to the vain wisdom of the world, but alienated from the divine Voice and source of all wisdom.
Holy Scripture is our connection to our past, our present, our future - because it is our connection to our Lord. It is necessary for spiritual growth. Like Holy Communion and Confirmation, it is most appropriately shared not only for building up the individual disciple but also for building up and uniting the Church as the Body of Christ. It is by experiential learning - that is, interaction - that discipleship begins to make sense. It is where the journey of faith begins - within the Church - and it is where the journey of faith is passed from one generation to the next. Absent this intimate connection, the Gospel of the Lord, the Word of the Living God, is but one generation from extinction.
Everyone needs someone. I may not agree with each of you on a particular point of doctrine but I need you in order to continue to grow, and you need me for the same reason. But above all else, the unbelieving world needs the INFORMED and UNIFORM Body of Christ. One God, One Lord, One Word, One Church. To the Glory of our Holy God and Father and to the "comfort of those who mourn", to "fill those who are hungry for righteousness", through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
To Confirm; to Live
Matthew 7:13-20
The first time I realized childhood was coming to an end was when there was no longer recess at school. Oh, what a sad day! What a cruel joke!! No one had warned us the year before that this time would come! The time for wide-eyed optimism was over, and we were about to be thrust into the "real" work of school. No more gold stars or hugs from the teacher; just "A's", "B's", and so on. We were still children, of course, but something had changed and would never be the same again.
In many cultures around the world, civilized and not-so-civilized, this is about the same stage of development when children make that awkward transition from childhood and take the first concrete steps toward adulthood. There is only one thing which still exists and which existed from the very beginning: we do not stop being members of our families. For good or bad, we are still who we were born to be and we are still identified by the families we were born into whether we are estranged from these families or not. For good or bad, we will always have that foundation from which we must necessarily grow. We began to take our own steps.
And these steps we take would have all the blessings - AND all the trappings - of our past. Even if we can look upon our childhood with regrets and certain bitterness as most of us can, we cannot escape the reality of where we presently are and where we will go from here. And we must also acknowledge the certain reality that at some point the journey stops being about our past but, rather, our future - which is to say, we make our own decisions, enjoy our own rewards, and suffer our own consequences.
Confirmation as a practice in many Christian traditions is typically reserved only for those children who had previously been baptized into the Covenant. Confirmation, in simple terms, is that time when children are supposed to take their first concrete steps toward declaring and living their own faith rather than the faith of their parents. And if the family, both biological and church, has done its job these children will be ready for such a colossal step. It is much like the bar or bat mitzvah of the Jewish tradition. Mitzvah being "commandment" and "bar" or "bat" being "son" or "daughter", the declaration being made is that one becomes a "son or daughter of the commandment" which means: I will be responsible for my actions to my God. In the Jewish tradition, parents are no longer accountable to the Lord for the sins of their children.
Confirmation is not typically associated with the "means of grace" we are more familiar with, and outside the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches it is not considered a "sacrament" of the Church. However, if we understand "sacramental" as "divine encounter", we must understand confirmation as standing before the Lord and making our own declaration of faith and allegiance. At the time of confirmation we become responsible disciples accountable to the Lord for our own lives. What we choose to do from that moment is entirely up to us.
Is it a matter of being "saved", declaring the Lord as our very own "personal" Lord? No, it reaches far beyond and becomes a purposeful, intentional, life-time commitment to discipleship. At confirmation we have not been "saved" FROM anything - rather, we are committing TO something much greater than ourselves. It is at this moment when we come to realize it is no longer about "me" or "personal" salvation. It is when we come to realize this "personal" Lord and Savior is not our very "own" to be kept only to ourselves.
In addition to being responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel, the Church is also charged with the awesome task and responsibility for continued support for these confirmands especially including those who have fallen away from the Church. It is indeed by grace we have been saved, but it is by commitment that we are strengthened each day for the next day's challenges. It is by baptism as a Sacrament of the Church that the Lord claims us; it is by confirmation that we claim the Lord and commit ourselves to His service in the Church and in the world. We can deny it, of course, but we cannot alter the spiritual reality.
But what of those who fall away from the discipline of the Church? There are many so-called "spiritual" Christians who have intentionally moved away because they reject the notion of "organized" religion as necessary to salvation, and they absolutely reject the concept of "discipline" that necessarily comes from the Church. What they fail to realize, however, is that "sanctification" - that is, the intentional pursuit of holiness - is a must, and discipline is a necessary component of the Church, particularly in the Wesleyan Methodist tradition by which we show genuine care and concern for one another and the necessary spiritual journey.
We have deliberately and with the most noble of intentions created a Membership Care Committee here at Asbury because we believe in Confirmation, we believe in accountability, we believe in the necessary discipline of the Church, and most importantly of all, we believe in each other and the strength that comes in numbers. We absolutely believe in this necessary action just as surely as we absolutely know that people who fall away from the Church and her discipline altogether are on a dangerous journey in choosing the "wide and broad way that leads to destruction".
Membership care teams, known as "discipling groups", will be making contact very soon with each and every active member of this church. As these groups expand and become even stronger - and I believe they will - they will be calling on members of this church who have fallen away, and these "fallen" will be lovingly challenged to account for their unfortunate and spiritually dangerous choice to go it alone. These "fallen" members will soon discover that "discipline" and "accountability" are not angry words with negative connotations. They will RE-discover, instead, that these very words were active in the loving care and concern they got from their parents not to punish them but to prepare them, to teach them, to correct them, of course, and to guide them.
There is no greater statement of neglect and lack of concern for one's well-being than to be left alone. Parents who neglect their children are in trouble with the law, and they should be! Should there be any less a punishable offense by the Lord's hands than to neglect members of our own church "family"? How is an unbelieving community to trust any "family" that cannot be trusted to care for its own??
A contact visit from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are loved. An invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are missed. An invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are needed. Above all else, an invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you ... are ... loved.
Confirmation as a "means of grace" must not be strictly limited to prepubescent boys and girls as a singular event, merely treated as a one-time-only bridge that must be crossed. Confirmation is, instead, a moment of accountability that will never end - for if it does actually cease to exist as a daily practice in the life of the Church, it will be the final nail in the coffin, the statement of the "confirmation" that the Church as the very Body of Christ no longer exists within us.
Play time is over. It is no longer "someone else's" responsibility to see to the business of discipleship. I believe life itself has been confirmed in so many ways but now that we have become the "good fruit" ourselves, it is time for us to being bearing "good fruit" for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Lord does not ask this of us - He requires it of His Holy Church, He commands it of those who call Him "Lord", and He promises everlasting Life to those who partake.
So let us partake. Amen.
The first time I realized childhood was coming to an end was when there was no longer recess at school. Oh, what a sad day! What a cruel joke!! No one had warned us the year before that this time would come! The time for wide-eyed optimism was over, and we were about to be thrust into the "real" work of school. No more gold stars or hugs from the teacher; just "A's", "B's", and so on. We were still children, of course, but something had changed and would never be the same again.
In many cultures around the world, civilized and not-so-civilized, this is about the same stage of development when children make that awkward transition from childhood and take the first concrete steps toward adulthood. There is only one thing which still exists and which existed from the very beginning: we do not stop being members of our families. For good or bad, we are still who we were born to be and we are still identified by the families we were born into whether we are estranged from these families or not. For good or bad, we will always have that foundation from which we must necessarily grow. We began to take our own steps.
And these steps we take would have all the blessings - AND all the trappings - of our past. Even if we can look upon our childhood with regrets and certain bitterness as most of us can, we cannot escape the reality of where we presently are and where we will go from here. And we must also acknowledge the certain reality that at some point the journey stops being about our past but, rather, our future - which is to say, we make our own decisions, enjoy our own rewards, and suffer our own consequences.
Confirmation as a practice in many Christian traditions is typically reserved only for those children who had previously been baptized into the Covenant. Confirmation, in simple terms, is that time when children are supposed to take their first concrete steps toward declaring and living their own faith rather than the faith of their parents. And if the family, both biological and church, has done its job these children will be ready for such a colossal step. It is much like the bar or bat mitzvah of the Jewish tradition. Mitzvah being "commandment" and "bar" or "bat" being "son" or "daughter", the declaration being made is that one becomes a "son or daughter of the commandment" which means: I will be responsible for my actions to my God. In the Jewish tradition, parents are no longer accountable to the Lord for the sins of their children.
Confirmation is not typically associated with the "means of grace" we are more familiar with, and outside the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches it is not considered a "sacrament" of the Church. However, if we understand "sacramental" as "divine encounter", we must understand confirmation as standing before the Lord and making our own declaration of faith and allegiance. At the time of confirmation we become responsible disciples accountable to the Lord for our own lives. What we choose to do from that moment is entirely up to us.
Is it a matter of being "saved", declaring the Lord as our very own "personal" Lord? No, it reaches far beyond and becomes a purposeful, intentional, life-time commitment to discipleship. At confirmation we have not been "saved" FROM anything - rather, we are committing TO something much greater than ourselves. It is at this moment when we come to realize it is no longer about "me" or "personal" salvation. It is when we come to realize this "personal" Lord and Savior is not our very "own" to be kept only to ourselves.
In addition to being responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel, the Church is also charged with the awesome task and responsibility for continued support for these confirmands especially including those who have fallen away from the Church. It is indeed by grace we have been saved, but it is by commitment that we are strengthened each day for the next day's challenges. It is by baptism as a Sacrament of the Church that the Lord claims us; it is by confirmation that we claim the Lord and commit ourselves to His service in the Church and in the world. We can deny it, of course, but we cannot alter the spiritual reality.
But what of those who fall away from the discipline of the Church? There are many so-called "spiritual" Christians who have intentionally moved away because they reject the notion of "organized" religion as necessary to salvation, and they absolutely reject the concept of "discipline" that necessarily comes from the Church. What they fail to realize, however, is that "sanctification" - that is, the intentional pursuit of holiness - is a must, and discipline is a necessary component of the Church, particularly in the Wesleyan Methodist tradition by which we show genuine care and concern for one another and the necessary spiritual journey.
We have deliberately and with the most noble of intentions created a Membership Care Committee here at Asbury because we believe in Confirmation, we believe in accountability, we believe in the necessary discipline of the Church, and most importantly of all, we believe in each other and the strength that comes in numbers. We absolutely believe in this necessary action just as surely as we absolutely know that people who fall away from the Church and her discipline altogether are on a dangerous journey in choosing the "wide and broad way that leads to destruction".
Membership care teams, known as "discipling groups", will be making contact very soon with each and every active member of this church. As these groups expand and become even stronger - and I believe they will - they will be calling on members of this church who have fallen away, and these "fallen" will be lovingly challenged to account for their unfortunate and spiritually dangerous choice to go it alone. These "fallen" members will soon discover that "discipline" and "accountability" are not angry words with negative connotations. They will RE-discover, instead, that these very words were active in the loving care and concern they got from their parents not to punish them but to prepare them, to teach them, to correct them, of course, and to guide them.
There is no greater statement of neglect and lack of concern for one's well-being than to be left alone. Parents who neglect their children are in trouble with the law, and they should be! Should there be any less a punishable offense by the Lord's hands than to neglect members of our own church "family"? How is an unbelieving community to trust any "family" that cannot be trusted to care for its own??
A contact visit from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are loved. An invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are missed. An invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are needed. Above all else, an invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you ... are ... loved.
Confirmation as a "means of grace" must not be strictly limited to prepubescent boys and girls as a singular event, merely treated as a one-time-only bridge that must be crossed. Confirmation is, instead, a moment of accountability that will never end - for if it does actually cease to exist as a daily practice in the life of the Church, it will be the final nail in the coffin, the statement of the "confirmation" that the Church as the very Body of Christ no longer exists within us.
Play time is over. It is no longer "someone else's" responsibility to see to the business of discipleship. I believe life itself has been confirmed in so many ways but now that we have become the "good fruit" ourselves, it is time for us to being bearing "good fruit" for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Lord does not ask this of us - He requires it of His Holy Church, He commands it of those who call Him "Lord", and He promises everlasting Life to those who partake.
So let us partake. Amen.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Only One Thing
1 Corinthians 1:10-18
It was pointed out to me recently - and my wife affirmed it - that I have a bad habit of using a $20 word when a $2 word would work just as well. I have to admit that if I discover anything that will annoy my wife, it is not likely I'll give it up anytime soon! It's my "dignified" way of flirting with her! Still, as a preacher who does not always proclaim the word to Ph.d types, it is important that I am more careful in the words I choose to make the same point: that the Gospel of the Lord is Light and Life. Live the Gospel, share the Gospel, preach the Gospel; and live in Light and Life Eternal.
The other night my son-in-law told me that he and my daughter had recently had a visit from the local Mormon missionaries, so he began asking me questions about the Latter-Day Saints, the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism in general. I cannot say I can speak the lingo, but there are some unique features of the Mormon faith I'm at least familiar with. Whether I agree with these particular features, however, is another story and far beyond the point.
The last visit I had at my home from two young missionaries began as simply as it could possibly begin. They smiled, looked me in the eye, and asked if I was aware that Jesus had died for my sins. That's it. It really was that simple - and genuine, I think. There was earnestness about them, their facial expressions, and the way they stood, but it was not the earnestness of a "recruiter" who was trying to make a quota. It was the enthusiasm of a genuine disciple who really wanted to be sure I was aware of my redemption.
That opening line alone caught me off guard because the typical door visits I've gotten from other groups usually begins with asking me if I'm "saved" or if I'm aware that the world is coming to an end. The word "saved" seems simple enough and it is fairly common Protestant language most Christians understand, but there is a difference here that I had not really appreciated until the Mormons knocked me off my balance and out of my comfort zone.
We had a very nice visit. I invited them in to sit for awhile, and we talked about religion, faith, orthodox Christianity (a very general description of American Christianity), and Mormonism; and they were as inquisitive to me as a United Methodist pastor as I was to them as Mormon missionaries. Though there were obviously some finer points of doctrine we differed on, there was no real "disagreement" in that one tried to correct or persuade the other. Their message was simple and inarguable: Christ Jesus died for the sins of mankind.
St. Paul was obviously answering a question that had been put to him by the Corinthian church he had established. Paul's answer indicates that within the church in Corinth (more likely several church "houses") there were more points of division rather than points of unification - and misguided loyalties. It is not unlike the many churches of Magnolia AR in which one church may belong to Pope Benedict, others may belong to Martin Luther, while still others may belong to John Wesley or John Calvin.
The doctrines and practices we have embraced over the years - actually, over the centuries - came to us from one source or another and usually as various interpretations of the same scriptural text. Within any given text there is this opinion or that perspective, and we often mistakenly refer to someone in the historic past as the ultimate authoritative figure. Worse than this, we make demands of those who do not agree with us, causing further divisions and doing little more than alienating people from the Church.
Now there does not seem to be any real harm in such human, historical references. Over time we have pretty much insisted that our clergy be reasonably educated not only in the Bible and church doctrine but also in history and philosophy. All these disciplines combine with others to offer a perspective that can help to restore a soul to the Lord or to re-energize the complacent souls of the faithful. Either way will bear the same fruit - as long as we keep the main thing the Main Thing.
The missionaries who came to my door were not asking if I was aware of a generic religion that taught about and worshipped some generic "god"; these missionaries wanted to know specifically if I was actively and actually aware that it took the tortuous death of Jesus to make possible my spiritual reconciliation with the one, true, and living God of all creation. They wanted to know if I was aware not of their church but of OUR GOD and Holy Father. They wanted me to know that a Sacrifice had been made specifically in my behalf and in the behalf of so many others.
Even when I identified myself as a United Methodist pastor, they did not try to challenge Methodist doctrine or my personal beliefs. It was, purely and simply, only about Christ. And when it became clear there were points of doctrine in which we disagreed, they made sure the main thing remained the Main Thing: salvation through faith.
There is no more "eloquent" message that can be shared. Divisions, dissensions, and debate all have their proper places and can serve as useful tools to more fully engage non-believers in active conversations about the Lord, but if these points of doctrinal disagreement become the primary focus of the engagement, then it is as St. Paul fretted about with the Corinthians: "The cross of Christ might ... be emptied of its power".
It is the Good News, Life-giving power of the Gospel of the Lord that is - and must always remain - the Main Thing whether we are talking to fellow Christians from other denominations, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, or non-believers. It does not really matter much where we or they come from; it matters much more where we are all headed and whether we will choose to persevere together in one common purpose: "to proclaim the Gospel" - regardless of the cost.
It does not require an educated mind or "eloquent wisdom" to make sure people are aware of the Gospel, and I'm not so sure we are required to make sure folks "believe" the way we think they should "believe". We need only to help them to "knock" as Jesus tells us to "knock" so that the Holy Spirit will open the door for them. From there the Lord will make sure they know what He needs them to know - rather than what we think they ought to know. We need only to make the introduction, by way of His Gospel, to that which we do know to be true: that Christ has died, that Christ is risen, and that Christ will come again. To the glory of God the Father and for the sake of our immortal souls.
It was pointed out to me recently - and my wife affirmed it - that I have a bad habit of using a $20 word when a $2 word would work just as well. I have to admit that if I discover anything that will annoy my wife, it is not likely I'll give it up anytime soon! It's my "dignified" way of flirting with her! Still, as a preacher who does not always proclaim the word to Ph.d types, it is important that I am more careful in the words I choose to make the same point: that the Gospel of the Lord is Light and Life. Live the Gospel, share the Gospel, preach the Gospel; and live in Light and Life Eternal.
The other night my son-in-law told me that he and my daughter had recently had a visit from the local Mormon missionaries, so he began asking me questions about the Latter-Day Saints, the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism in general. I cannot say I can speak the lingo, but there are some unique features of the Mormon faith I'm at least familiar with. Whether I agree with these particular features, however, is another story and far beyond the point.
The last visit I had at my home from two young missionaries began as simply as it could possibly begin. They smiled, looked me in the eye, and asked if I was aware that Jesus had died for my sins. That's it. It really was that simple - and genuine, I think. There was earnestness about them, their facial expressions, and the way they stood, but it was not the earnestness of a "recruiter" who was trying to make a quota. It was the enthusiasm of a genuine disciple who really wanted to be sure I was aware of my redemption.
That opening line alone caught me off guard because the typical door visits I've gotten from other groups usually begins with asking me if I'm "saved" or if I'm aware that the world is coming to an end. The word "saved" seems simple enough and it is fairly common Protestant language most Christians understand, but there is a difference here that I had not really appreciated until the Mormons knocked me off my balance and out of my comfort zone.
We had a very nice visit. I invited them in to sit for awhile, and we talked about religion, faith, orthodox Christianity (a very general description of American Christianity), and Mormonism; and they were as inquisitive to me as a United Methodist pastor as I was to them as Mormon missionaries. Though there were obviously some finer points of doctrine we differed on, there was no real "disagreement" in that one tried to correct or persuade the other. Their message was simple and inarguable: Christ Jesus died for the sins of mankind.
St. Paul was obviously answering a question that had been put to him by the Corinthian church he had established. Paul's answer indicates that within the church in Corinth (more likely several church "houses") there were more points of division rather than points of unification - and misguided loyalties. It is not unlike the many churches of Magnolia AR in which one church may belong to Pope Benedict, others may belong to Martin Luther, while still others may belong to John Wesley or John Calvin.
The doctrines and practices we have embraced over the years - actually, over the centuries - came to us from one source or another and usually as various interpretations of the same scriptural text. Within any given text there is this opinion or that perspective, and we often mistakenly refer to someone in the historic past as the ultimate authoritative figure. Worse than this, we make demands of those who do not agree with us, causing further divisions and doing little more than alienating people from the Church.
Now there does not seem to be any real harm in such human, historical references. Over time we have pretty much insisted that our clergy be reasonably educated not only in the Bible and church doctrine but also in history and philosophy. All these disciplines combine with others to offer a perspective that can help to restore a soul to the Lord or to re-energize the complacent souls of the faithful. Either way will bear the same fruit - as long as we keep the main thing the Main Thing.
The missionaries who came to my door were not asking if I was aware of a generic religion that taught about and worshipped some generic "god"; these missionaries wanted to know specifically if I was actively and actually aware that it took the tortuous death of Jesus to make possible my spiritual reconciliation with the one, true, and living God of all creation. They wanted to know if I was aware not of their church but of OUR GOD and Holy Father. They wanted me to know that a Sacrifice had been made specifically in my behalf and in the behalf of so many others.
Even when I identified myself as a United Methodist pastor, they did not try to challenge Methodist doctrine or my personal beliefs. It was, purely and simply, only about Christ. And when it became clear there were points of doctrine in which we disagreed, they made sure the main thing remained the Main Thing: salvation through faith.
There is no more "eloquent" message that can be shared. Divisions, dissensions, and debate all have their proper places and can serve as useful tools to more fully engage non-believers in active conversations about the Lord, but if these points of doctrinal disagreement become the primary focus of the engagement, then it is as St. Paul fretted about with the Corinthians: "The cross of Christ might ... be emptied of its power".
It is the Good News, Life-giving power of the Gospel of the Lord that is - and must always remain - the Main Thing whether we are talking to fellow Christians from other denominations, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, or non-believers. It does not really matter much where we or they come from; it matters much more where we are all headed and whether we will choose to persevere together in one common purpose: "to proclaim the Gospel" - regardless of the cost.
It does not require an educated mind or "eloquent wisdom" to make sure people are aware of the Gospel, and I'm not so sure we are required to make sure folks "believe" the way we think they should "believe". We need only to help them to "knock" as Jesus tells us to "knock" so that the Holy Spirit will open the door for them. From there the Lord will make sure they know what He needs them to know - rather than what we think they ought to know. We need only to make the introduction, by way of His Gospel, to that which we do know to be true: that Christ has died, that Christ is risen, and that Christ will come again. To the glory of God the Father and for the sake of our immortal souls.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Baptism: pathway to the Cross
Matthew 3:7-17
In light of the renewed commitment to the Covenant we made to the Lord and to one another a couple of weeks ago, now is a good time to begin a new series to explore the Wesleyan understanding of grace, the "means of grace", and how grace translates through these means. By and through our Methodist heritage we grow in and explore the blessings of prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace - the Lord meeting us and speaking to us at various stages in our spiritual development as we learn to see the world through His eyes, becoming more and more Christ-like in our daily living, seeking wholeness in unity with the Holy Spirit.
We need to understand the nature of divine grace and what it means to us in terms of how we navigate an unbelieving world as filled with goodness and beauty as it is with evil and injustice. It is necessary for us to understand that coming into the Lord's grace does not mean problems will magically disappear, nor does it mean we are granted "excuses" for our un-Christ-like, immoral, and unrepentant behavior. Instead, we come to understand that through His grace we are assisted by the Holy Spirit who is imparted to us through covenant and continues to speak to us through diligent prayer, Scripture study, public worship, and other means of grace. By this grace we are empowered to resist evil and other temptations that serve only to separate us from the Lord; and by this grace to actively work toward justice for those to whom justice has been denied. These and other works of piety and mercy are the fruits of the Holy Spirit made manifest in the life of the Church through divine grace.
It all begins at baptism, the sign and mark of the New Covenant in Christ, the outward expression of an inward grace, the means by which we are symbolically yet spiritually washed cleaned, young and old alike. The power of the Lord to forgive sins through baptism is a mystery to us because there is obviously not enough water in the world to cleanse the soul, but we must also understand there is much more than water that comes into play when one is baptized into the Covenant and into the Church.
Baptism is one of the two "means of grace", or acts of piety, embraced by the United Methodist Church as sacramental (the other is Holy Communion), sacramental being understood as evidence of the Lord's giving of Himself by His actual presence. Through the Sacraments of the Church we celebrate these divine moments in eternity when the Lord touches the human soul in an unmistakable way. It is sad that these two practices of the Church universal are more often "flash points" of conflict and misunderstanding than they are moments and means of comfort and unity, but they are unmistakably biblical as practices of the Lord Jesus Himself; sanctioned, sanctified, and ordained in His Body the Church for all time and for all who would call Him "Lord".
In order to explore the sacramental nature of baptism, is it necessary to compare and evaluate the various practices and traditions in order to find the one we like and dismiss those we don't? Not really; the reason being that the nature of such evaluation puts way too much stock in the doctrines and individual beliefs of man. It is much more helpful to consider the theology and commonalities of the various practices and, ultimately, the common denominator; that element of baptism which finally and completely acknowledges the Lord Himself as the only means by which one is washed clean and made new. We also understand that, like Holy Communion, there can be nothing "private" about it because the whole congregation takes part. Baptism is a public declaration indeed, but the greater question to us might be: who is making the declaration?
John's baptism was one of repentance as a means by which to prepare for the presence of the Lord's Anointed, as it is written, and we can clearly see the many who came to John to receive this baptism of repentance in preparation for the Lord's actual presence. It is a mistake, however, to believe that what John was doing was somehow new. It is not reasonable to suggest John the Baptist just "made it up" solely for the coming of Jesus anymore than it is reasonable to suggest that small children were not also part of "all Judea" who came to present themselves. The practice of baptism as a means of purification is not strictly a New Testament idea, nor is its practice strictly reserved for the River Jordan - or any river, for that matter.
There are many OT references to the Lord's command to be "sanctified" (washed, purified) before entering into His presence on the holy mountain, in the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple itself. Yet Jesus, the One who was without sin and had no need to repent, also presented Himself to be baptized, to be "sanctified", to be "purified"? Why? The answer, of course, is recorded for us: "to fulfill all righteousness". Fair enough, but what does this really mean? And how is such a statement translated to us here and now in the 21st-century Church when and where Christianity is not exactly new?
And here is where we get stuck in the past. In the context in which Matthew's account is written, Christianity has yet to be born as a religion. A Jewish culture with Jewish practices which means all the little boys are likely already "marked" with the sign of Abraham's covenant is the contextual setting. This means a covenant is already established, and children are already being raised in households marked and identified as households of faith within that covenant. That same context does not apply in the 21st century because Christianity is not new.
In Matthew's account there are two important elements involved. One is the obvious common act of "Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan" who presented themselves for sanctification: repentance; "to prepare the way of the Lord, to make His path straight", to make one worthy of the divine Presence. The other element that is clearly present is the Holy Spirit "descending like a dove", but it is a mistake to believe it took an act or even the faith of man to make that moment possible or even likely.
The Lord was at work in Jeremiah's life before he was born, even before he was "formed in the womb" (Jeremiah 1:5). This is what Wesleyan Methodism teaches about "prevenient grace". The Lord is already and perpetually at work in every single life that is formed in the womb - without exception. It so happens Jeremiah was "ordained as a prophet". Obviously we are not all prophets, but we are all unmistakably "ordained"; set apart for the Lord's good purposes long before we are even aware of His presence. It is in this vein that United Methodism, like many other traditions, has retained the practice of infant baptism for centuries. It is in that divine moment when new life, young AND old, is proclaimed by the Church and given to the Lord through His Covenant.
As it pertains to human practices, we must acknowledge there is no way - NO WAY - humans will ever "get it right" or "do it right" because it is not ours to "do" or to "get". It is ours only to respond. And because we are admonished that "it is impossible to please the Lord [without faith]" (Hebrews 11:6), it necessarily falls to us to respond "in faith" without holding anything or anyone back, especially our children, because the Covenant belongs to the Lord alone. It is His eternal Promise that ALL are invited into His Household, but the invitation must be answered in and on His terms. It is parallel to the reality of the Cross; we cannot have Christ without the Cross - nor can we have part in His Covenant without actually being in the Covenant. It is not unlike the terms of a contract. The contract's owner sets forth the terms of the contract, and other parties must enter into that contract ON ITS TERMS as set forth ... or not at all. The contract does not apply to any who are outside that contract.
This is a Promise you and I can surely embrace only if we can put aside the inconsistent practices of humanity and give it all over to the Lord where it belongs. How dare any human suggest that a child - or ANYONE who lacks the capacity to speak or otherwise communicate in his or her own behalf - cannot be baptized into the Lord's Covenant; such a declaration presumes that the Lord cannot or will not act until or unless He is cued or summoned by man! Baptism as a sacrament is an act of the Lord, not the will of man. Jesus Himself said, "You did not choose Me; I chose you" (John 15:16).
The Baptists are not "right", the Catholics are not "right", nor are the Methodists "right". It is the Lord alone who is "right" and Righteous, and it is that divine righteousness we are being baptized into! It is the Lord's Promise to give and to give freely. It is the prevenient act of the Lord to bring Light into darkness, to bring order from chaos as He has from the beginning - all without man's permission! It is a Promise we must necessarily affirm often and be always mindful of - as the Body of Christ and as disciples, for we are covenanted with Him to follow Him all the days of our lives ... all the way to the Cross. And beyond.
In light of the renewed commitment to the Covenant we made to the Lord and to one another a couple of weeks ago, now is a good time to begin a new series to explore the Wesleyan understanding of grace, the "means of grace", and how grace translates through these means. By and through our Methodist heritage we grow in and explore the blessings of prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace - the Lord meeting us and speaking to us at various stages in our spiritual development as we learn to see the world through His eyes, becoming more and more Christ-like in our daily living, seeking wholeness in unity with the Holy Spirit.
We need to understand the nature of divine grace and what it means to us in terms of how we navigate an unbelieving world as filled with goodness and beauty as it is with evil and injustice. It is necessary for us to understand that coming into the Lord's grace does not mean problems will magically disappear, nor does it mean we are granted "excuses" for our un-Christ-like, immoral, and unrepentant behavior. Instead, we come to understand that through His grace we are assisted by the Holy Spirit who is imparted to us through covenant and continues to speak to us through diligent prayer, Scripture study, public worship, and other means of grace. By this grace we are empowered to resist evil and other temptations that serve only to separate us from the Lord; and by this grace to actively work toward justice for those to whom justice has been denied. These and other works of piety and mercy are the fruits of the Holy Spirit made manifest in the life of the Church through divine grace.
It all begins at baptism, the sign and mark of the New Covenant in Christ, the outward expression of an inward grace, the means by which we are symbolically yet spiritually washed cleaned, young and old alike. The power of the Lord to forgive sins through baptism is a mystery to us because there is obviously not enough water in the world to cleanse the soul, but we must also understand there is much more than water that comes into play when one is baptized into the Covenant and into the Church.
Baptism is one of the two "means of grace", or acts of piety, embraced by the United Methodist Church as sacramental (the other is Holy Communion), sacramental being understood as evidence of the Lord's giving of Himself by His actual presence. Through the Sacraments of the Church we celebrate these divine moments in eternity when the Lord touches the human soul in an unmistakable way. It is sad that these two practices of the Church universal are more often "flash points" of conflict and misunderstanding than they are moments and means of comfort and unity, but they are unmistakably biblical as practices of the Lord Jesus Himself; sanctioned, sanctified, and ordained in His Body the Church for all time and for all who would call Him "Lord".
In order to explore the sacramental nature of baptism, is it necessary to compare and evaluate the various practices and traditions in order to find the one we like and dismiss those we don't? Not really; the reason being that the nature of such evaluation puts way too much stock in the doctrines and individual beliefs of man. It is much more helpful to consider the theology and commonalities of the various practices and, ultimately, the common denominator; that element of baptism which finally and completely acknowledges the Lord Himself as the only means by which one is washed clean and made new. We also understand that, like Holy Communion, there can be nothing "private" about it because the whole congregation takes part. Baptism is a public declaration indeed, but the greater question to us might be: who is making the declaration?
John's baptism was one of repentance as a means by which to prepare for the presence of the Lord's Anointed, as it is written, and we can clearly see the many who came to John to receive this baptism of repentance in preparation for the Lord's actual presence. It is a mistake, however, to believe that what John was doing was somehow new. It is not reasonable to suggest John the Baptist just "made it up" solely for the coming of Jesus anymore than it is reasonable to suggest that small children were not also part of "all Judea" who came to present themselves. The practice of baptism as a means of purification is not strictly a New Testament idea, nor is its practice strictly reserved for the River Jordan - or any river, for that matter.
There are many OT references to the Lord's command to be "sanctified" (washed, purified) before entering into His presence on the holy mountain, in the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple itself. Yet Jesus, the One who was without sin and had no need to repent, also presented Himself to be baptized, to be "sanctified", to be "purified"? Why? The answer, of course, is recorded for us: "to fulfill all righteousness". Fair enough, but what does this really mean? And how is such a statement translated to us here and now in the 21st-century Church when and where Christianity is not exactly new?
And here is where we get stuck in the past. In the context in which Matthew's account is written, Christianity has yet to be born as a religion. A Jewish culture with Jewish practices which means all the little boys are likely already "marked" with the sign of Abraham's covenant is the contextual setting. This means a covenant is already established, and children are already being raised in households marked and identified as households of faith within that covenant. That same context does not apply in the 21st century because Christianity is not new.
In Matthew's account there are two important elements involved. One is the obvious common act of "Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan" who presented themselves for sanctification: repentance; "to prepare the way of the Lord, to make His path straight", to make one worthy of the divine Presence. The other element that is clearly present is the Holy Spirit "descending like a dove", but it is a mistake to believe it took an act or even the faith of man to make that moment possible or even likely.
The Lord was at work in Jeremiah's life before he was born, even before he was "formed in the womb" (Jeremiah 1:5). This is what Wesleyan Methodism teaches about "prevenient grace". The Lord is already and perpetually at work in every single life that is formed in the womb - without exception. It so happens Jeremiah was "ordained as a prophet". Obviously we are not all prophets, but we are all unmistakably "ordained"; set apart for the Lord's good purposes long before we are even aware of His presence. It is in this vein that United Methodism, like many other traditions, has retained the practice of infant baptism for centuries. It is in that divine moment when new life, young AND old, is proclaimed by the Church and given to the Lord through His Covenant.
As it pertains to human practices, we must acknowledge there is no way - NO WAY - humans will ever "get it right" or "do it right" because it is not ours to "do" or to "get". It is ours only to respond. And because we are admonished that "it is impossible to please the Lord [without faith]" (Hebrews 11:6), it necessarily falls to us to respond "in faith" without holding anything or anyone back, especially our children, because the Covenant belongs to the Lord alone. It is His eternal Promise that ALL are invited into His Household, but the invitation must be answered in and on His terms. It is parallel to the reality of the Cross; we cannot have Christ without the Cross - nor can we have part in His Covenant without actually being in the Covenant. It is not unlike the terms of a contract. The contract's owner sets forth the terms of the contract, and other parties must enter into that contract ON ITS TERMS as set forth ... or not at all. The contract does not apply to any who are outside that contract.
This is a Promise you and I can surely embrace only if we can put aside the inconsistent practices of humanity and give it all over to the Lord where it belongs. How dare any human suggest that a child - or ANYONE who lacks the capacity to speak or otherwise communicate in his or her own behalf - cannot be baptized into the Lord's Covenant; such a declaration presumes that the Lord cannot or will not act until or unless He is cued or summoned by man! Baptism as a sacrament is an act of the Lord, not the will of man. Jesus Himself said, "You did not choose Me; I chose you" (John 15:16).
The Baptists are not "right", the Catholics are not "right", nor are the Methodists "right". It is the Lord alone who is "right" and Righteous, and it is that divine righteousness we are being baptized into! It is the Lord's Promise to give and to give freely. It is the prevenient act of the Lord to bring Light into darkness, to bring order from chaos as He has from the beginning - all without man's permission! It is a Promise we must necessarily affirm often and be always mindful of - as the Body of Christ and as disciples, for we are covenanted with Him to follow Him all the days of our lives ... all the way to the Cross. And beyond.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Revolutionary Gene Pool: it's who we are
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred - right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." - Abraham Lincoln
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - US Declaration of Independence
Though it is hard to imagine such foresight, we now have exactly the kind of society envisioned by the founders of this republic. The government, however, may be another story. What was a tragedy and a criminal act in the Tucson AZ shootings has become a political flash point. Democrats and Republicans, news media and bloggers, and just about everyone in between has tried to capture this horrendous moment and use it as an opportunity to do little more than to advance a political agenda. Even worse, there are actually members of Congress who have dared to suggest the need for federal regulations to curb "hate speech", failing to realize that by their very rhetoric they are only adding fuel to an already out-of-control fire.
US Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, according to Foxnews.com, made reference to former Senate candidate Sharron Angle's call to employ "2nd amendment remedies" in suggesting a change in the "nation's political dialogue - by will or by law". Since the congresswoman's comments indicate a lack of "will" on her part, it seems clear she is suggesting the law as a remedy to control ... what? Free speech? There is, even now, a free speech decision pending before the US Supreme Court involving one of the most hateful crews in the United States - the Westboro Baptist Church folks who have made a name for themselves in picketing the funerals of service members killed in action and who will be picketing funerals in Arizona. Does this congresswoman even read the news?
If it is true that the Republican-controlled US House will require that all bills meet a constitutional standards and citation requirement, it would be interesting to see how a member of this same Congress would attempt to side-step that requirement or justify the need to ignore such constitutional mandates. Like it or not, our constitution requires that this congresswoman - and every member of the US Congress - as per her oath of office, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". This Constitution is, in fact, THE rule of law especially as it pertains to the limits of power within the federal government, limits this Congress has clearly exceeded for many years now.
Further federal restrictions on the purchase of guns will also fall short given that gun ownership has been deemed a "right" by the US Supreme Court as specifically outlined in this same Constitution. It is ironic that the militia to which the 2nd amendment refers has its grounding and reasoning in the need for a militia to help protect the community from an overbearing government, and it is an existing overbearing government that would move to take these guns from their lawful owners.
This nation was founded not on principle but on revolution. This nation traded one tax for another, one king for another, one set of laws for another, and it was done with the full knowledge that the Crown of England would not let the Declaration go unanswered. So we fought; and with the aid of the French, we won our coveted independence from England - and immediately moved to surrender our independence a little at a time to what is now a government that has far exceeded King George's reach.
There was a day, as Sarah Palin recently mentioned, when political disputes were settled by dueling pistols. We have grown a little since then and have become a little more civilized, but not by much. The Tea Party influence has been a continuing thorn in the side of the Democrats and others who believe the federal government can solve all problems by regulation and it has been accused of enflaming political rhetoric, but it might be more appropriate to suggest that this overbearing government that is far from "the people" has earned the challenge that goes back to the principles of this nation's founding: "exercising their right ... their duty to throw off such government" not by armed insurrection but by the ballot box.
This nation can be said to have come full-circle from its founding. A need for less government intrusion has been identified, and "revolution" has been justified. For the time being, it is only the means by which revolution is employed that has changed. The end has become necessary.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - US Declaration of Independence
Though it is hard to imagine such foresight, we now have exactly the kind of society envisioned by the founders of this republic. The government, however, may be another story. What was a tragedy and a criminal act in the Tucson AZ shootings has become a political flash point. Democrats and Republicans, news media and bloggers, and just about everyone in between has tried to capture this horrendous moment and use it as an opportunity to do little more than to advance a political agenda. Even worse, there are actually members of Congress who have dared to suggest the need for federal regulations to curb "hate speech", failing to realize that by their very rhetoric they are only adding fuel to an already out-of-control fire.
US Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, according to Foxnews.com, made reference to former Senate candidate Sharron Angle's call to employ "2nd amendment remedies" in suggesting a change in the "nation's political dialogue - by will or by law". Since the congresswoman's comments indicate a lack of "will" on her part, it seems clear she is suggesting the law as a remedy to control ... what? Free speech? There is, even now, a free speech decision pending before the US Supreme Court involving one of the most hateful crews in the United States - the Westboro Baptist Church folks who have made a name for themselves in picketing the funerals of service members killed in action and who will be picketing funerals in Arizona. Does this congresswoman even read the news?
If it is true that the Republican-controlled US House will require that all bills meet a constitutional standards and citation requirement, it would be interesting to see how a member of this same Congress would attempt to side-step that requirement or justify the need to ignore such constitutional mandates. Like it or not, our constitution requires that this congresswoman - and every member of the US Congress - as per her oath of office, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". This Constitution is, in fact, THE rule of law especially as it pertains to the limits of power within the federal government, limits this Congress has clearly exceeded for many years now.
Further federal restrictions on the purchase of guns will also fall short given that gun ownership has been deemed a "right" by the US Supreme Court as specifically outlined in this same Constitution. It is ironic that the militia to which the 2nd amendment refers has its grounding and reasoning in the need for a militia to help protect the community from an overbearing government, and it is an existing overbearing government that would move to take these guns from their lawful owners.
This nation was founded not on principle but on revolution. This nation traded one tax for another, one king for another, one set of laws for another, and it was done with the full knowledge that the Crown of England would not let the Declaration go unanswered. So we fought; and with the aid of the French, we won our coveted independence from England - and immediately moved to surrender our independence a little at a time to what is now a government that has far exceeded King George's reach.
There was a day, as Sarah Palin recently mentioned, when political disputes were settled by dueling pistols. We have grown a little since then and have become a little more civilized, but not by much. The Tea Party influence has been a continuing thorn in the side of the Democrats and others who believe the federal government can solve all problems by regulation and it has been accused of enflaming political rhetoric, but it might be more appropriate to suggest that this overbearing government that is far from "the people" has earned the challenge that goes back to the principles of this nation's founding: "exercising their right ... their duty to throw off such government" not by armed insurrection but by the ballot box.
This nation can be said to have come full-circle from its founding. A need for less government intrusion has been identified, and "revolution" has been justified. For the time being, it is only the means by which revolution is employed that has changed. The end has become necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)