John Piper and Masculinity

If anyone knows me, or reads the stuff I write, it will not take them long to realize that I am not a fan of John Piper. There are many reasons, but most of all, I am not a biblical literalist or fundamentalist of any flavor. Linked to this post is a blog post by Ben Witherington III. I have great respect for Dr. Ben as a New Testament scholar and brother in Christ. In this post he, too, takes exception to something that Piper stated at a conference. Within Witherington's post is a link to that address by Piper. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Ben. And, I would even take his position further. Maybe more on that at a later time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/02/12/john-piper-on-men-in-ministry-and-the-masculinity-of-christianity/

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.

American Exceptionalism

Brian McClaren recommended a blog post by Randy Woodley over at the Emergent Village. It is an excellent blog that we should consider prayerfully.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2012/02/jesus-and-american-exceptionalism-by-randy-woodley/#comment-1223

On Church growth...

Yesterday I read a post about the continuing trend of people leaving the church. In particular, this dealt with mainline churches, but can be applied across the board, with some exceptions in Africa, South America and, maybe some areas of Asia. These concerns have been voiced as long as I can remember. They have sparked worship wars and all sorts of new programs to meet people's apparent wants and needs. From the seeker sensitive to the high liturgical, church leaders have scratched their collective heads looking for ways to keep people in the pews.
One more, Bishop Timothy Whitaker, a United Methodist from Florida has waded into the discussion. He wrote that what these churches may be experiencing is a resounding "No" from God regarding present paths of ecclesiastic practice. Rather than looking for new methods, they should be looking for fresh direction from God. Ok. But, the hoped for outcome is the same. If these churches find God's path, then membership should grow and stabilize.
But, just for the sake of discussion, I think that's still not the answer. I mean, so what? Do we have another committee to discuss the correct way to seek and discern God's will and motivation? And, if they could possibly come to consensus, which is unrealistic, what then? Tear it down and start over? I am reminded about a particular baby and some bathwater. What if we are, actually, already within the will of God? What if we were to take seriously the statement, "many are called, but few are chosen"? Church decline would not be the source of so much anxiety. (Except, maybe for those whose livelihoods are tied to it.) This should in no way stifle our zeal to be 'gospellers.' We are still called to bring Yahweh's reign to bear in this hurting world. But, our focus and concern would be on that rather than maintaining a church roster.

Politics as usual, or words from a brother?

I just had the opportunity to read a speech delivered by Pres. Obama at this year's National Prayer Breakfast. The speech was filled with words that were directed at the audience. It was in a style that those present would expect and appreciate. It also contained its share of politics. The president is in an election year and did not miss this opportunity to promote his policies. Hey, it's part of the package.
But, I was deeply impressed at his understanding of values that are embraced by people of varied and diverse faith communities. As the leader of a pluralistic society in a post-modern culture, I think he did a very good job. The speech was not condemning, it was inclusive. It did not alienate any faith community, but praised each. Actually, I was surprised at his apparent candor and transparency about his own faith. Again, I take some with a rather large grain of salt. A politician is still, well, a politician. However, with the hate and vitriol spewing from some others engaged in this year of choice, President Obama's words were a stark and refreshing contrast. Some folks may not care for his policies, but I don't think that I can question his values and concerns for everyone, including "the least of these."
Here is a link to the speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/02/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast

Mitt, what are you thinking?

Ok, so maybe I'm not very bright. But, in an interview with Soledad O'Brien after his primary victory in Florida, Mitt Romney made a statement that, if it's truly how he feels, I hope will cost him any chance at becoming President. The statement, while qualified, was that he was not focused on the very poor or the very rich in this country. The reasons? The poor have a 'safety net' and the rich are just fine.
What safety net? Yes, there are government programs like medicaid and food stamps. But, they're still poor with no realistic hope of ever becoming anything other than poor. This imaginary safety net idea reminds me of a scene in the movie "The Greatest Show on Earth" in which a flyer tries to show off and cuts the, yep, safety net down. He missed a grasp and fell, the imprint of the useless net embedded on his broken body.
Romney, while touting this 'thing,' stated that if it's broken he'll fix it. How, Mitt? You have stated that your focus is not on these people. Why should we believe that, as president, you will have any concern for them?
No, Mr. Romney. You can keep making your millions and remain isolated from the people of this country. I, for one, will not support you. I will do whatever I can to see you defeated.
For any who cares, here is a link to the interview:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2012/02/01/point-romney-poor-safety-net.cnn

Letter from a former slave

I found this letter in a news item from Yahoo. I have no idea if it's authenticity has been determined. However, it does display the resilience and strength of people that were at one time treated as chattel. I especially appreciate the humor.
It's important to note that at no time does the writer indicate that he wished to take retribution for the treatment inflicted on him and his family. This is one point that I have seen reiterated time and again by the womanists. While they have strong feelings about justice for everyone, there is never an indication that revenge is an option.
Please, take time to read the letter:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/to-my-old-master.html