Privileged, and Mostly Oblivious to It

I am a white male. That's what I've always been. That's what I always will be. I can't help it. It's how God made me. If everything was equal, there would be no problem with that. But, things are not equal. I am privileged in this culture. And, God did not make me that. The systems that have been built over centuries have ensured that I would have a privileged position in society. These systems are so deeply embedded in our culture that most of us who are privileged don't even realize that we are. It's just 'the way it is.'
Recently, Tony Jones, a highly educated, white guy made a presentation that rubbed some people the wrong way. One of the people in attendance,Christena Cleveland, called Tony out for being exercising his privilege. Jones responded with obviously hurt feelings. Now, at first, I didn't see all that much that was offensive in Jones' remarks. Shoot! I've probably said similar things myself! As I reflected on it, though, I became more and more uncomfortable. Then, a few days later Jones, I think in an attempt to show how egalitarian he is, posted a request for women and feminists to join in his blog. Again, an understandable response from a privileged person who sincerely believes that he is above reproach in these matters.
This morning I visited the blog of Caryn Riswold. She pretty much dissed Jones' offer. And, she challenged readers to go and read what people who are NOT privileged have to say. One of those links led me to Cleveland's blog. I spent the next 30 minutes reading a 5 part series that she had posted. What great stuff! You see, we who enjoy privilege are blind to it. We simply can't understand why 'others' don't like us. We don't get it when marginalized and oppressed people don't 'get' us. In fact, many of us don't realize that there are any oppressed people out there. After all, we live in a land of equal opportunity. But, as the old cliche goes, "some of us are more equal than others."
I am adding a link to Cleveland's series. I would encourage anyone who happens to stop by here to take the time to read it. It is of utmost importance if we are trying to be the Body of Christ to understand where the other members of that body live and breathe and have their being. It is important, no necessary, that we embrace kenosis, emptying, as Jesus did if we are to live as God's people. 
 

Hate what God Hates...Whatever that is

Last week I visited a local church. It’s one that I’ve visited a few times over the past few years. I find meaning in the liturgy there. It’s not like the evangelical free church that I was a part of for many years. This church understands the importance of symbol and celebration in a way that actually embodies, at least how I understand it, the work of God in worship. However, the senior pastor made a statement during a prayer that puzzled me. He prayed that we would love what God loves, and hate what God hates. Now, to most evangelicals, this sounds like a good prayer. It is asking God to show us how and where to direct our affection and our disdain. It seems to be asking for wisdom and discernment. Good things, right? But, there is more to this, I think. First, what does God love and hate? The prayer left this wide open to every speculation and opinion. Although, in his sermon he alluded to some moral concerns, primarily directed to young people, there was no direction for any of us to take in order to discern these things. So, I decided to take a quick trip through the Scripture to see if I could find anything that could help me to love the things God loves, and to hate what God hates.

First, I want to say that this is in no way a comprehensive study. Most Christians would not understand it if it was. This is a quick view that any interested person could do in a short amount of time. It is, in its brevity, accessible to anyone.

In the New Testament I found very few references to God hating anyone or anything. There is a reference to Mal. 1:2 in Romans 9. It reads that God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. In the Romans context, Paul was trying to explain God’s sovereignty in the form of election. God will have mercy on who God chooses. It’s not up to human actions. In the Malachi reference, it appears that God was explaining that through divine choice, God considered Esau as an enemy. Again, no reason other than God’s choice. PLEASE NOTE that this is an example of God’s own divine choice. It is not something that we could ever possibly act out on our own. We cannot hate Esau because we do not have a reason to. God alone gets to make that call. Besides, for the pastor’s prayer above to have any meaning for us today, we would need to know who the heck Esau is. We cannot hate Esau.

In Hebrews 1:9 we find that Jesus apparently hated lawlessness, but loved righteousness. Again, no definitions here. What did the writer mean by lawlessness? Kittel, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, wrote that in this particular instance, lawlessness could be synonymous with sinfulness. So, the writer was basically making the statement that Jesus hated sin. But, the sin, or lawlessness here appears to be that which Jesus hated in his own life! Not in anyone else’s. Because of this, God set him above his companions. Ok, so we can learn to hate sin IN OUR OWN LIVES. This text does not give us privilege to hate it in anyone else’s life.

There is a statement in Revelation that is a tad confusing. Apparently, God hated the deeds of someone referred to as Nicolaitans. No one really knows for sure who these folks were, nor what deeds are being referred to. Can’t hate what we don’t know about.

So far, there isn’t much that I can find that would help us to hate what God hates. Mostly because, it doesn’t appear that God hates too much.

The Hebrew testament has some interesting things to say about what God hates. Without giving specific references, I found that God hates dishonest gain. Hmm… If we were to bring that statement forward a couple thousand years, perhaps God would not be happy with Western economic systems that reward those who get ‘gain’ using any means, including dishonest ones. Of course, when these people or institutions are found out, there is a great public outcry for a day or two. Then, back to business as usual. Maybe we could find an object of hatred there. But, as Jesus told those who brought the adulteress to him, let whoever is without sin toss the first rock.

The Scripture is clear in many places that God hates idolatry…all idolatry. What can we learn from that? Most people would define idol worship as anything that a person places importance on at the exclusion of other things, especially God. That could be money, house, job, spouse/kids, lover, prestige, RV, or cable TV. Here again, though, it is idolatry that we have in our life that is important here. It’s not up to us to point out the idolatry that we may sense in others. We are pretty much incapable of having accurate discernment.

In Proverbs chapter 6 the writer gave a list of things that God hates. Now, with this kind of list, the main point is usually the last item in the list. In this one that item is one who spreads strife among brothers. In fact, all of the items are interpersonal things. Lying, shedding innocent blood, etc. God apparently doesn’t like it when people treat other people badly. Ok, I can understand that. So, how does that play out as we relate to the LGBT community? What’s that look like as we objectify and marginalize women? Immigrants? The poor? Just something to think about.

There are other texts that I could reference, but, I’ll finish with this one. Amos 5:21-24,

21 “I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.

22   “Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them;

And I will not even look at the  peace offerings of your fatlings.

                   23  “Take away from Me the noise of your songs;

I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.

                   24  “But let justice roll down like waters

And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Perhaps, now I’m just speculating here, God isn’t all that happy when people use that authority of the pulpit to speak for God. At least, when making general statements that are loaded with emotion. Maybe our church leaders would do well to make sure that the words that come out of their mouths are accurate and precise. From what I’ve found out, these are the ones who may experience God’s displeasure.

Times when it's best to just Shut Up!

I read a blog today written by a man about women and abortion. The author is a retiree from the L.A.Sheriff's Dept. named Tony Miano. I think that this is important to remember. I'll reference it later.
Anyway, the blog is at:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/borntoreform/2013/03/do-women-regret-their-abortions-enough/
In it Miano laid out his position on abortion and the woman's responsibility in it. Now, I'm a man and I will not get into this debate. Which is something that Miano should have done. What I do want to address is his argument and method. Particularly, I want to focus on his language and theology. Both of which are poor.
His purpose in writing appears to be to encourage women to reconsider the choice of abortion, or to reflect on the consequences of the abortion after the fact. In this process, he seems to want these women to turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Of course, he provides the usual steps to take to do this...through faith, repent and ask Jesus to be Lord and Savior. Prior to this invitation he does his best to show these wayward female souls the error of their way. He accuses them of "murdering their unborn child," of deciding to "kill their child," of wondering about "such depravity that leads a woman to slaughter her own child." He is magnanimous enough to "give abortive women the benefit of the doubt and assert that most women later regret killing their unborn children." He hopes that women will regret and feel what he refers to as "godly grief" that will produce repentance. Now, for some who read this may support Miano's effort. From a modern, literalist point of view he seems to be heading in the right direction. Abortion is sin, therefore, those who have abortions are sinners who need God's grace. But, Miano doesn't stop there.
First, he has singled out women as the sinner, or from his law enforcement background, they are the 'perpetrator.' As such, they must be brought to justice. This is misogyny. For every woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy there is a man who did the impregnating. Now, I realize that in the U.S. the father has no say in this issue. There may be many who oppose the choice of the woman. But, that doesn't negate his responsibility in conception. Miano did not mention men's responsibility at all.
Second, he is standing on a soap box deriding human beings for whom Jesus came. Many of the women that he simply wants to give the "benefit of the doubt" are dealing with issues and feelings that NO MAN can ever understand. In this he is spouting vitriol from a position of privilege. This would have been a time when it would have been best to shut up.
Third, he misrepresents God. By painting the Father of Jesus as One who is out to get vengeance on wayward people is a horrible misreading of the gospel. Jesus came to usher in God's realm and to reveal God's character as One who loves the Good Creation and those of us who inhabit it. To use Christian code to bash people is just wrong.
Fourth is his arrogance. He is clear that how he has read and understands the biblical text is absolutely the only proper way to read and understand it. Sorry, Tony, but it's not. Perhaps if he would have actually gone to a reputable institution of higher learning he would know that. But, nothing in his posted resume indicates this. He was in law enforcement. In this position he would have accepted the dualism of right and wrong and black and white. There is no room for gray or colors with this thinking. And, of course, he is always right.
Miano advertises himself as an 'itinerant preacher.' But, I wonder what it is that he preaches. It seems to be hate and judgement. I'm pretty certain it's not the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Imago Dei

Read an interesting blog this A.M. It reveals much of the current direction that Christ followers are taking theology. I find the position refreshing. If for no other reason than it provides fodder for reflection. For those of you who know me, that's one of my favorite past times! Anyway, here is the link. Please take a minute to read it. Then take more than a minute to reflect.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/01/the-image-of-holiness/#comment-13066

Tolstoy and Moral Relativism

As anyone who knows me or has read this blog can attest, I really like a couple of the Renovare resources for devotions. I am now working through Spiritual Classics: Selected Readings on the Twelve Spiritual Disciplines...again. Today's was an excerpt from an essay by Leo Tolstoy. In it he decried the use, or abuse, of various substances that tend to dull one's consciousness and render their ability to think and grow. In his reflection on the reading, Richard Foster, who co-edited the book, stated his concern for using conscience as a guide to moral living. He wrote, "it is especially problematic in our day in which modern relativism has turned conscience into virtually anything we want it to mean." He then turned the idea of relativism into a similar "stupefying substance" not unlike the alcohol, tobacco and opium that Tolstoy denounced. He cited as a corroborating source Dallas Willard. He quoted Willard, "there is now no recognized moral knowledge upon which projects of fostering moral development could be based."
Now, I've been hearing this same kind of concern for many, many years. It seems that it is used anytime the established 'norm' is challenged. In my time it has been applied to the liberal 60's and all those hippies who turned the world upside down. It became the cry from the watchmen and moral gatekeepers when post modernism began to show its hoary head in our culture. Now, these same folks are stating that all of the support and underpinnings of a moral and virtuous society have been destroyed. Watch out! The end of the world as we know it is upon us!
Many folks, particularly conservatives, feel that without some commonly accepted absolute truth(s) society necessarily must founder; rudderless in and ocean of individualistic ambiguity. I'm not sure that I entirely agree with this prognosis. Yes, absolutes that were accepted as truth by our parents, grandparents and, maybe, great-grandparents have been challenged. And, I think, rightfully so. Without fresh insights and understanding gained through challenge we cannot really 'own' any kind of moral or virtuous action or thought. There is NO real threat in challenge! Even when these actually reveal inconsistencies and inaccuracies in long held positions, they are still not a threat. Sometimes it's necessary to dig through and shovel away the crap in order to see the kernel of truth that has been buried. That kernel can them be rethought and recast to better serve society as it is now; today.
I actually believe that there is a very healthy moral under girding for today's society. I see it revealed in actions taken by entire communities to support folks in the aftermath of Newtown. It is embodied when people stand up to powerful forces of injustice. The moral fiber of those who care for the weakest and most vulnerable of our fellow humans is a strong witness. It shines in the lives of Palestinians and Israelis whose hearts and lives are linked in support for one another. Virtue shines when people chose what is right over that which fosters hate and division.
But, perhaps the most problematic point that comes from the moral gatekeepers is the fear and distrust that it engenders. The obvious objects are those who question and challenge. These are enemies to be fought and destroyed. They are no longer fellow travelers through life, but something 'other' and evil. I'm sorry, but I haven't yet found where Jesus took that position. More disconcerting for me, though, is the palpable lack of trust in Yahweh. It seems that God is rendered impotent by the challenges raised by those who have been created in the Divine image.
I have hope. I trust that God's will surely will be done on earth as in heaven. I am equally sure that when assumptions and interpretations, that MUST be flawed because they are of human origination, are challenged that we really have nothing to fear. In fact, we may, as one wise person was reported to have said under similar circumstances, "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these [people] alone!...For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [it]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39).

Away for a bit

It's been a couple weeks since I've been here. There's simply been too much on my plate to spend time with this blog. My dad was back in hospital again. It really sux getting old. He's a tough old codger, though. And, I started at a new position at work last week. New stuff to learn and not a lot of time to learn it. Ah, yes! I love it when they move the cheese.
Anyway, I've spent the better share of the last month ruminating on how the Euro-American worldview is simply NOT the best way to live a full and abundant life. I've read a couple books from a Zen point of view. One of them by a Jesuit priest who uses Zen practices to deepen his spiritual life with Yahweh. Interesting stuff that I will comment on later. I've also been studying material written from a First Inhabitant point of view. I have been encouraged to look at this by Randy Woodley. He is an American Cherokee with a Ph.D from Asbury Seminary. Having been following his online works and blogs, as well as working through his newest tome, Shalom and the Community of Creation: An Indigenous Vision, has given me much to meditate on. This, too, I'll comment on later. All of this to say, I am in the process of trying to reconcile the Euro-American culture with the Very Good Creation that Yahweh has provided for all living things to dwell in. It's difficult. Actually, it's impossible. We who are of European descent have much to bring to the discussion, but we are not the answer or telos of that discussion.

American Pie: Christian Style

I am always on the lookout for pieces that help to put cultural hermeneutics in some kind of proper perspective. I have learned over the past few years that much of what I had thought true is actually a view that has been skewed by my position as a white male in North America. Not only is the view of this dominant culture biased in the extreme, it is wrong in more places than I can get to in a short blog. Thankfully, there are a multitude of others who see this as a problem and are discussing it in books, blogs, seminaries, colleges, and even some churches. The link I have posted here leads to one view that I think is important for Christ followers to ruminate on. Enjoy!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2012/04/strange-christianity-made-in-america-part-iii-by-randy-woodley/#more-1228

The Father turned his back...I don't think so

This is my 100th post. Holy Smokes! Maybe someone should bake a cake. So far, this has been fun for me. I've enjoyed trying, sometimes not so successfully, to get my thoughts organized and written. I hope that any who have chosen to visit here have not been disappointed by my lack of eloquence and understanding. This is, after all, a blog. It's not meant to be a formal repository of all spiritual and experiential truth.
With that being said, I feel a need to rant just a bit. It's my blog; I can do that.
Today is Good Friday. It's the time when the Christian world remembers the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. After an eventful, and sometimes turbulent, public ministry the end came with a sudden ferocity that shocked those who were intimately relating with Jesus.
One thing that many people try to explain and understand is, what actually transpired on this day? Yes, we know that Jesus was unjustly tried, tortured, and hung on a tree where he died. But, what happened between the Father and the Son that day? Some have tried to say that between the hours of noon and 3 P.M., when darkness covered the world, the Father was compelled to turn away from the Son because your sin and mine were placed on Jesus. The Father's holiness could not look on this sin. Therefore, the first and second persons of the Trinity were separated from one another for this time.
I'm sorry, but I don't get this. Let me just share a couple points. The first is the ontological impossibility that I see in this. The very nature of Yahweh precludes this 'separation.' The Church has believed that there is, has, and always will be a perfect unity in the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This unity cannot be broken because it is God's will that it remain intact.
Another reason that is equally compelling for me is that this view gives a distorted image of the Father. What kind of Father would abandon his Son like this? Perhaps even stronger language is required. What kind of God would this represent? At best, one who is selfish and easily offended. At worst, one who is incapable of saving anyone. Now, I know that this idea of Jesus being totally forsaken and abandoned by everyone, including the Father evokes an emotional response that may cause someone to make a decision to follow Christ. But, what kind of God are these people deciding to follow? How deep is the commitment that is made by these people? I think that the distortions that this concept give of God, the loving Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, are too many to recount.
So, what can we understand from this? Jesus, hanging on the cross, cried out, "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?" Rather than taking this as Jesus, the divine Son of God, perceiving a real break in his eternal relationship with the Father, we should see Jesus, the Son of man totally identifying with the humanity he came to redeem. We sometimes forget that the incarnation means that God came to dwell with humankind as a human being. As such, Jesus was open to experience all that being a human person could experience. As he came to the end of his life, he fully and completely became Emmanuel, God with us. As David expressed in Psalm 22 these very words that Jesus spoke; as the prophets cried out time and again, "where are you, God?"; as Job in the depths of his misery cried to see and speak with God who had apparently abandoned him; as countless women and men throughout history have experienced the desolation and loneliness of suddenly realizing that all seemed lost, Jesus tasted the true human condition, embraced it, and totally identified with it. The result? I am saved by a person who understands me. I have a high priest and advocate who knows what it's like to live in a world that needs a compassionate Savior. More importantly, I have a heavenly Father who will not abandon me because I may get dirty while walking through this world. I have a God who is not afraid to get the divine hands dirty while lifting me from the muck and mire of my life. This God; Father, Son, Spirit can be trusted with our very lives because Jesus is Emmanuel.

Atonement stuph...

It's that season...Easter! The time when Christ followers around the world celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And, ever since that time discussions have ensued as to the meaning of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
Over at Theoblogy, Tony Jones has an interesting clutch of posts on the Atonement. Here is a link to a page that contains links to the discussions thus far. I've not read them all, but the discussion is open and diverse. I hope that you enjoy reading them!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/tag/atonement/

Thoughts on culture and biblical engagement...

I attended a men's breakfast this morning. Good food! After the meal one of the leaders of the church usually gives a short presentation about something 'manly.' Today's topic came from the experience of one of the co-pastors. He shared about his son's graduation from basic training and how these young men and women were being equipped to take their place in the defense of the U.S. He spoke of the discipline, honor, and respect required of each individual and group. These young people are well prepared to focus on their task. There is much we can learn from this type of training in our spiritual lives, as well. But, that's a topic for a different time.
This pastor took the topic in a direction that many fundamental evangelicals like to go. He described the siege that we are a part of in the West in general; America in particular. According to him, the church has given back whatever "territory" it has held to Satan. This capitulation will, then, inevitably lead to a conflict in which the church will suffer persecution and loss. He has, in so many words, described one of the 'refuge responses to culture' that Reggie McNeal wrote about in A Work of the Heart: How God Shapes Spiritual Leaders. He wrote that one response to what is a perceived hostile culture is "withdrawal-reactionary." Leaders with this perspective see the culture as "the world" that should be "avoided as a dangerous sphere of human activity that threatens the Christian culture." Now, this particular pastor will disagree that he advocates dissociation with the culture. He has stated that we must engage the people in the culture with the gospel. However, the gospel that is presented does not speak to the culture. Many, in fact, simply view it as irrelevant.
But, the end-game is the same. Because we have 'lost ground' and capitulated to an 'enemy,' we must then take up the battle and try to 'restore' the 'good, christian values' that once reigned supreme. In this battle there will be casualties. In fact, these are to be expected, and apparently, embraced. These will be martyrs to the cause of the cross.
I have problems with this on more levels than I can articulate now. If we are in a battle, who is the enemy? For many of these folks the enemy is anyone who is not 'with us.' They are 'other.' If they want to become something acceptable, they must become 'us.' This disqualifies any liberal thinker. Forget about the environment. It's not important because it's going to be burned up in the end anyhow. And, it's more important to make sure that the pews in heaven are filled than to live for justice in this world. I think what scares me most is the pseudo-martyr attitude that is becoming more prevalent. We've seen what this has done in radical Islam. In fact, we've seen it in radical fundamentalism in Christianity. Shootings in churches and bombings of abortion clinics ring loudly in the ears of many.
Yes, I agree with him that we are in a battle. And, it's a fight to the death. Our enemy, however, is not the abortionist or Barak Obama. Our enemy is unseen. He fights with deception and stealth. He has been likened to a ravenous lion searching for people to devour. He is the power behind the systems that oppress and imprison. Greed, poverty, hunger, war, hate and intolerance. He can only be defeated by prayer and a willingness to be light and salt in this culture...here; now. I know I have not done justice to this topic. There are so many dimensions and nuances to Biblical cultural engagement. But, this is important. We are not fighting people. Humans are the image-bearers of their Creator. They are all, each and every one, significant and important to Yahweh. They need to be honored and respected as such.

The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

The ongoing discussions about biblical inerrancy continues to fascinate me. I've read the Chicago definition. I find it wanting. Mostly, because it tries to define God in an extremely narrow manner. It also, I feel errantly, raises the biblical text to the place of godhood. It is, as they say, bibliolatry. What really got me thinking about this was the nastiness that many display when this question comes up.
While struggling with this, and other issues related to the biblical literalist position, a professor of Old Testament asked an interesting question. While considering both Ruth and Esther as stories that most likely were not accounts of actual events, he asked if it was possible for truth to be expressed in fiction. Hmm....Heck Yeah! I began to think about the story of Scripture as narrative...a love story from Yahweh to creation. The inconsistencies in the text disappeared as did the battle between science and theology. In this world all can live together in the discussion. Inspiration has never been an issue with me. The text is inspired. It is, however, free to express God's love, mercy, compassion, etc. without the hindrance of having to line up with, or do away with observable truth. Yea, God!
Anyway, I bring this up to share a link to another blog where this topic is being chewed on once again.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/03/15/absolute-perfection-oh-my-rjs/
Enjoy!

Thoughts on biblicism

Yesterday I touched on an issue that some may be hold near and dear to their heart. I mentioned that I am neither a biblical literalist nor a fundamentalist. In present-day parlance, I am not a biblicist. I understand the biblical canon, as we now have it, to be "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" 2 Tim. 3:16-17. What is important to note is what is not mentioned in this text. Nothing is said about being historically or scientifically accurate. Nothing can be drawn from this to indicate that any anthropological applications, i.e., relationships between women and men, etc. may be imposed on all people, at all times, and in all places. William C. Spohn wrote in, "Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics," about something analogical imagination. Rather than simply stating, "the Bible says it, that settles it," we are encouraged to look at how the text related to its world and then to apply the text to our current world situation. This takes hard work. But, it's important to remember that the biblical text was written by humans about their own human experiences. It was transmitted by humans to other humans. Most importantly, it is always interpreted and applied by humans. This is not to say that the divine is not involved. I absolutely believe that the inspiration to write the text was God's alone through the Holy Spirit. And, I believe that the Holy Spirit has superintended the text, including the inspiration of those who arranged the canon. But, by putting all of the emphasis on the divine part of the text, and making it some Barthian Word of God, we lose the humanity of the documents. The human-ness, with all of  the foibles and triumphs of humanity, are lost to some magical mystery tourbook mentality. Yes, the Bible is inspired by God. No doubt. But, we probably should leave it room to do what Paul wrote to Timothy about. Not to try and shoe-horn it into some container that was not meant to contain it.

Service or Servitude

I've recently been going over my materials from one of my classes at seminary. It was "A womanist hermeneutic."
The class has become the focus of much reflection of late. What is the impact of locating one's life within the reality that race, class, and gender are cultural areas in which a dominant culture oppresses and subjugates the 'other'? The womanist theologian looks for ways to read, interpret and apply the scriptures in such a way that true egalitarianism can emerge. Not sameness. But, to allow each person created by God to find and define their own identity and place within the Reign of God in this world. One thing that stuck out was the issue of being a servant. Jesus stated that he had come to serve, not to be served. What does this say to us who look to Jesus as Lord and Master? I guess and even more primary question would be why was it necessary for Jesus to demonstrate service? In a narcissistic world, one where each person has a subjective need for power and recognition, what better way would there be than for the Creator to show us how? Service need not be weakness. Jesus revealed that true service flows from a position of strength. By exhibiting humility Jesus showed us how to put others' needs above our own. In fact, through his example true service was revealed to be something that can only be willingly offered to those who require the service. The disciples at the last supper 'required' their feet washed. Jesus willingly offered the service, then told them to do likewise.
Service demanded creates servitude. This is wrong and should be called the sin that it is. It oppresses and demeans others. True service lifts the other by demonstrating God's care for each person. I wish that I could say that we have all learned lesson well. But, in this world there are still those who control the power; political, economic, etc., who demand the uncompromising obedience and servitude of others. We who have achieved great comfort and security need to see whose backs have the imprint of ours and others' boot heels. Just a thought.

God: To be or not to be...Is that even the question?

The past couple of days I've spent some time reading the blogs of folks who identify themselves as atheists. It's been fun. These folks have some really good points that, apparently, aren't being addressed by theists of any flavor. One of the recurring complaints is "I don’t think I can accept that without explanation or evidence." I completely understand and respect this position. For people to question and investigate things is inherently human. (Not cat-like curiosity.) I am one of those Christ-followers who embrace the scientific community. Do I think that science knows, or can know, all of the answers to all of the questions that all of the people on this rock can ask? No, not really. On the other hand, do I think that the Bible or any person who searches and studies its contents can know this either? Still, no. One of the respondents to a blog I checked out identified himself as a physicist. He wrote, "In physics and mathematics, special circumstances hold at singularities.  Within classical big bang cosmology (which is regarded as incomplete by essentially all experts, even with the addition of semiclassical inflationary models), the Universe began with a singularity." He then suggested with these special circumstances it's possible that the Universe was causeless. I really hope that he's not correct. I, like a good share of the rest of humanity, would like to think that we, as well as the Universe, have some reason, or cause, to be here taking up space. So, please, scientific community; keep looking!
The reason I can encourage those who seek is that I am not threatened by this. And, I don't think that the God I follow does, either. I believe that this God has gifted humankind with a mind that questions and seeks. This mind is creative and imaginative, just like the One who imagined it.
In response to those who demand explanation or evidence. Sorry, can't help you. And, to be honest, I don't feel that I have to prove a thing. If I am truly to follow Christ, I must, with him, state, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
Truthfully, I don't see any reason to engage the discussions put forth by atheists. I really don't think that discussion is even possible when there appears to be irreconcilable differences. They want proof, all I can offer is experience. Like one blind person in the Gospel narrative I can say, "I know that once I was blind, but now I see." No one can share the blindness I experienced, so they cannot possibly understand what I now see. Please, I hope that no one thinks that because I don't care to debate these issues I don't care for those who would debate. I do. These are people who have meaning and worth. Their opinions are important, but they are only opinions. I cannot prove that God is a loving, caring Being who lives outside, yet inside of our physical universe. (Please, don't make me try to say that again.) Nor, can they prove to me that there cannot possibly be any such Being. In the meantime? I suppose we can agree to disagree and get on with life. For some of us, that may be much longer, (shorter?), than we think.

It sounds good on paper, but....

I have been following Brian McLaren's blog for quite some time. I first got turned on to him in a class at seminary. One of the professors wanted to show us some of the emergent church's views, so he picked McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. His intent was to give us an idea of the near heresies that were out in the community that we would need to prepare ourselves to ward off. Little did he know that McLaren resonated with me. I've got to be clear. I do not agree with everything that McLaren writes. However, there is a lot of refreshment in them thar pages. There is also quite a bit of food for thought.
Today McLaren had a link to a post by George W. Sarris titled, Jacob I Loved - Esau I Hated. It is an interesting look at election in the Bible. Sarris posits that those whom scripture states are created for wrath, or are for 'common' rather than 'noble' use, (Rom. 9:21), are not being dismissed to eternal torture, but are not chosen for God's purposes at that time. He wrote, "Paul is not referring to election to salvation.  Rather, he is referring to God’s election to service of those He has chosen to be His instruments." Now, I like this idea. I'm not one of those who is looking forward to any soul being lost for eternity. The God I read about doesn't fit that description. But, there is a lot of history behind the traditional view of this, and similar, texts.
I am going to take quite a bit of time to reflect on this. Because, if this can be shown to be a viable understanding of these texts, it will change the way many people view the Reign of God on this planet.
Read Sarris' post and let me know what you think.

Just a couple thoughts....

One of my favorite professors from seminary, Dr. John Byron, had an interesting reaction to what seemed to be a rather innocuous blog post. He remarked at the reaction many had to Tim Tebow's day against the Pittsburgh Steelers. The fact that Tebow through for a reported 316 yds. at 31.6 yards per play aroused the imagination of many people. The coincidental relationship between Tebow's stats and John 3:16 seemed to be irresistible fodder for media and religious folks alike. I followed the thread as it unfolded during the day. The amount of vitriol poured out toward Dr. Byron for his position on Tebow's accomplishment was remarkable. Dr. John shared his position and supported it intelligently. I can almost see him smiling and shaking his head. He has said many times that he doesn't understand why some blog posts receive such responses. What impressed me most was that he remained calm and allowed his detractors to rant without responding in kind. Cudos Dr. John.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other thing I wanted to mention today is another look at the Devil Made Me Do It. In a short excerpt from a piece by John Henry Newman, (1801-1890), there is a brief insight into the devil's tactics. He wrote, "While we are found in Christ, we are partakers of His security. He has broken the power of Satan: He has gone 'upon the lion and adder, the young lion and the dragon hath He trod under His feet'; and henceforth evil spirits, instead of having power over us, tremble and are afftighted at every true Christian. They know he has that in him which makes him their master, that he may, if he will, laugh them to scorn, and put them to flight. They know this well, and bear it in mind, in all their assaults upon him; sin alone give them power over him; and their great object is, to make him sin, and therefore to surprise him into sin, knowing they have no other way of overcoming him. They try to scare him by the appearance of danger, and so to surprise him; or they approach stealthily and covertly to seduce him, and so to surprise him. But except by taking him at unawares, they can do nothing.
Therefore let us be, my brethren, 'not ignorant of their devices'; and as knowing them, let us watch, fast, and pray, let us keep close under the wings of the Almighty, that He may be our shield and buckler. Let us pray Him to make known to us His will-to teach us our faults-to take from us whatever may offend Him-and to lead us in the way everlasting."
The excerpt, from Spiritual Classics: Selected Readings on the Twelve Spiritual Disciplines, is somewhat archaic in its language, but it is spot-on with its insights. We who are Christ followers may be confident that the One who is in us is greater than the one who is in the world. We do have responsibility to, as Newman wrote, "watch, fast, and pray, let us keep close under the wings of the Almighty, that He may be our shield and buckler." Our enemy is crafty and subtle. We must be aware, but not obsessed. Watchful but not focused on the enemy. Our focus must be on Jesus alone. The enemy can assault us, but not overcome us.

More food for thought...even tho my brain hurts

My doctor told me to avoid thinking because I get a brain cramp every time I try. But, who listens to their doc? Today I read another interesting essay by Derek Flood over at theRebelGod.com. He seems to do a lot of thinking. I bet his brain hurts sometimes, too. But, this particular essay was a critical review of a book titled, Pierced for Our Transgressions by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of the essay. At the end of this post I'll provide a link. But, the gist of it was to contrast the Church Fathers' thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement to the later concept of Penal Substitution. For most of us this can be a sticky subject. The Emergent folks, especially, take issue with the idea that an angry God demanded that a bloody sacrifice be made so that the angry God's wrath would be assuaged. So, the only worthy sacrifice turned out to be God's own Son. The long and short of this was that God sacrificed God to Gods-self so that the holy and righteous anger of God would not be poured out on humanity. This is also a sticking point with many who are not Christ followers. I have heard in discussions with some of these folks that they cannot believe in a God who would sacrifice anyone, let alone God's own Son, just because this God was 'pissed off' at humanity.
I've chosen some rather vulgar, or common, ways to describe this because that is how it is viewed by the folks mentioned. And, if I am honest, I tend to agree with them. This has been something that has bothered me for a very long time. It just seemed that the scriptures don't paint a picture of a wrathful, vengeful deity who is basically a cosmic kil-joy just because He can be. It seems capricious and arbitrary to me.
Now, along come Derek Flood. In the essay he points out that the early Fathers, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, et al. held a very different position. For them the importance of Jesus' willing offering of himself was "healing, and the overturning of the dominion of death." This makes much more sense in the context of the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus. It makes more sense in the context of Isaiah's "Suffering Servant", (Is. 52:13-53:12).
I would recommend Flood's essay as a starting point for some good, old-fashioned theological reflection and meditation. It has been helpful to me in dealing with some of the problems I have with reformed, Calvinist theology.
Here is the link for the PDF of Flood's essay: http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

The Virgin birth...fact? Does it really matter?

There has been quite a reaction to an article written by Albert Mohler. This article was in response to another by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Mohler's argument that one must accept the virgin birth of Jesus as fact or risk one's position as a Christ follower. He wrote, "This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth."
While I personally do believe in the birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, Mohler's inflamed rhetoric does little to convince anyone who is not a Christ follower of the truth of Christ's life and mission to reconcile the Cosmos to Yahweh. It does, however, point to the narrow focus of some. Having read some other articles by Mohler, I think that this recent one reveals more about Mohler's view on biblical inerrancy than to anyone's faithfulness to Christ.