Underlying Causes of Terrorism

Deep down, I long to be a pacifist. Although I accept the just war position as credible, I would love the simplicity of rejecting all violence. I would gladly march in step behind Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder with the banner of Christ unfurled. I search for nonviolent solutions, and I give serious consideration to the proponents of such. I am moved by the stories of Martin Luther King, Jr and the civil rights movement. I am emboldened by stories of Rosenstrasse where nonviolent protests by German family members won the release of Jews during the Nazi Regime. As a result, I was interested in reading David Cortright’s "Nonviolence and the Strategy against Terrorism."

Cortright begins by quoting Jim Wallis writing, "If nonviolence is to have any credibility, it must answer the questions violence purports to answer, but in a better way." The challenge is a world of Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, and a nuclear Iran. Can nonviolence provide a pathway to justice and peace? Unfortunately, I’m still searching. Cortright’s position does not satisfy.

Cortright’s response to terrorism hinges on two strategies. First, we should step up efforts of law enforcement and intelligence gathering. He writes,

The most urgent priority for countering terrorism, experts agree, is multilateral law enforcement to apprehend perpetrators and prevent future attacks. Cooperative law enforcement and intelligence sharing among governments have proven effective in reducing the operational capacity of terrorist networks. Governments are also cooperating to block financing for terrorist networks and deny safe haven, travel, and arms for terrorist militants. These efforts are fully compatible with the principles of nonviolence.

Whether these efforts are fully compatible with the principles of nonviolence is another debate. My guess is that Cortright would not allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use torture, for example, to gather information on terrorist groups. Beyond that, the problem of state-sponsored terror remains. We cannot send a squad car to a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to pick up suspected terrorists. Likewise Iran will probably not honor our extradition requests. Force and the threat of force remain the staples of foreign policy. I’m still waiting for a credible alternative.

Second, Cortright suggests that we should address the underlying problems that leads to terrorism.

A nonviolent approach should not be confused with appeasement or a defeatist justification of terrorist crimes. The point is not to excuse criminal acts but to learn why they occur and use this knowledge to prevent future attacks. A nonviolent strategy seeks to reduce the appeal of militants’ extremist methods by addressing legitimate grievances and providing channels of political engagement for those who sympathize with the declared political aims.

A good question might be what constitutes legitimate political grievances? Poverty, injustice, the existence of Israel, the election of George W. Bush? Probably a better question might be why some peoples who face legitimate political grievances do not resort to terrorism? For example, blacks in Birmingham, Alabama at the height of segregation did not strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses. They had legitimate grievances, and they addressed them in another way.

Al Quaeda has released another video calling on Americans to convert to Islam or face the consequences. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has challenged President Bush to embrace Islam. Palestinian Muslims forced the conversion of Fox News reporters at gunpoint. Sadly, when I look at the underlying causes of the terrorism, one screams at me–totalitarian Islam.

Cortright seems downright oblivious to this underlying cause. Unfortnately, no solutions will be found unless we accurately understand the threat.

The Nature of Doctrine

Again, I've been listening to a podcast from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary about the recent General Assembly report on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the lecture, Charles Partee spends some time discussing the practice of theology and the nature of doctrine. Here are some excerpts (the emphasis is my own)...

I would have liked to have seen a much more dramatic approach to the question of what it is to do theology. That is, how does one create doctrine, and for what purpose.

This is my suggestion. Theology in my mind is not science. It simply is not science, and the disciplines of science have only a tangential reference to what theologians do. Secondly, theology is not philosophy. We do a lot of talk about reason and synthetic a priori and analytic a priori and concept of experience and all those kinds things. But in the last analysis, theology is not philosophy no matter what tools that one might appropriate from that discipline. At the same time, theology is not poetry. There is a real reference. There are factual components, and what we do in theology is to make truth claims of a particular sort.

My conviction then is that what theology is trying to do is not explain but protect. It maybe entirely too avant garde for a committee of the General Assembly to try to make that point. But I would suggest that in a classroom setting that you at least reflect on the notion that theology is not the truth but is in fact an attempt of the reverent Church to protect the truth which is quite beyond our comprehension…

In the Christian Church for all our academic emphasis, the first orders of speaking are, in fact, preaching, hearing, singing, and praying. Theology is in my judgment a second order of activity. It is an attempt in our thinking to be faithful to these other parts of the church’s life. The whole language of the Christian Church is not classroom language but is church language. Therefore, a lecture and a sermon are very different activities.

Candidates for ministry vow to "receive and adopt the essential tennets of the Reformed faith." As we examine candidates and discuss essential tennets within the church, some reflection on the nature of doctrine is necessary. Theology is secondary to worship. Our theology must not begin with humanity or an abstract notion of God. It begins on our knees in worship. Ultimately, doctrine is in service to the Church. If it does not protect the Biblical witness, then it is useless. I agree with Partee here.

Renewing One Congregation at a Time

Jim Berkley is a reporter for the Institute on Religion and Democracy which has spent the past several years seeking a change in the social and political witness of mainline denominations. As a Presbyterian, Berkley primarily concerns himself with issues facing the PCUSA. He attended the recent Presbyterian Coalition and the Presbyterian Global Fellowship meetings in Atlanta.

Berkley suggests that the Presbyterian Global Fellowship is following a specific playbook.

The Presbyterian Global Fellowship (PGF) attitude seemed to be that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is largely irrelevant. Thus, the PGF folks will just go ahead and build strong churches that have an outward, missional focus. They're not going to spend much energy anymore thinking about polity machinations or Louisville decrees; they're just going to pursue excellence with a band of missional companions, despite the denomination.

Whether this attitude is an accurate appraisal of PGF remains to be seen. Berkley himself admits as much. No matter how accurate, however, the thought represents the view of many evangelical pastors and elders within the denomination. Whether weary of the battle or happier in hands-on ministry, evangelicals often concern themselves with their local congregation, ignoring the happenings in the greater church.

If Berkley is correct, I do not see this attitude as much of a change from the status quo. Vibrant, healthy churches have always existed in the PCUSA. Unfortunately, as individual congregations have improved, that improvement has not translated to the greater denomination.

Can this strategy bring about renewal in the denomination? Only if congregations become less insular. Healthier congregations should partner with weaker ones. Coalitions of congregations should develop and promote resources for renewal. If possible, these should be accomplished through presbyteries. If not, congregations should do these things on their own. Many small, struggling churches are begging for assistance. Evangelicals should make a concerted effort to help these congregations. Through local churches, the denomination can be renewed one congregation at a time.

One Cheer for Christendom

During a mission trip to Senegal, I had an opportunity to teach church history to some future West African pastors. At one point in the class, we were discussing about how Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Raised on Jacques Ellul and Stanley Hauerwas, I began to decry the heresies of Christendom. I argued that the political recognition of Christianity was a negative mark on the history of the church. The students were confused. Many of these students had come from countries where Islam was the dominant religion with either cultural or political sanction. They could not imagine that a Christianity without persecution could be a bad thing.

I thought of those students recently when I heard a lecturer condemning the evils of Christendom. What was once an important and novel critique has unfortunately become cliché. Church history before Constantine, good. Church history after Constantine, bad. To be fair, the sins of Christendom still haunt us. The largest is the church’s abdication of it’s witness to the kingdom of God. Instead, the church has often been a chaplain for the existing cultural and political order.

I taught my African students that the official recognition and protection of Christianity opened the door to heresy and laziness. They taught me that being a persecuted minority isn’t much fun. Although flawed, Christendom deserves one cheer if not three.

We must not forget that Christendom Christianity witnessed to the gospel in its own imperfect way. Christendom produced Martin Luther, John Calvin, Karl Barth and even Stanley Hauerwas. Along with its sins, the Christendom church has done a multitude of good works. The church is always a mix of wheat and tares. To emphasize the tares to the exclusion of the wheat is patently unfair.

The real danger of making a caricature of Christendom lies not in the past, but the future. Christendom is by most accounts dead. The post-modern church will not be susceptible to the sins of past. However, she will be tempted in many new ways. Being anxious to condemn Christendom, we make ourselves blind to our own temptations. Again, the church is always a mix of wheat and tares. Every age demands sober reflection on the nature of the church.

Hate-Word of the Month: Missional

I have recently subscribed to the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary podcast, and I was listening to a classroom discussion dated 5-3-06 concerning the General Assembly report on the Trinity. The discussion is a good addendum to an article written by Andrew Purves and Charles Partee in the March/April 2006 issue of Theology Matters.

Given some of the recent discussion concerning the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, I found this intriguing quote by Andrew Purves...

I've decided over the last couple of weeks that my hate-word of the the month is "missional." I've gotten tired of "missional." And I've gotten tired of "missional" because I see it more and more functioning as an abstract adjective. Then it gets filled in with content from wherever. I keep wanting to use the word, "christological." Because if we are in union with Christ, of course, we will be a mission people. We can't be otherwise.

I am a pastor whose favorite books in seminary were Calvin's Institutes and Bosch's Transforming Mission. I believe Guder's Missional Church is essential reading for pastors. I am currently leading my congregation with the help of the Center for Parish Development to become more "missional." Despite all this, I am totally in agreement with Purves.

Jesus Christ is more foundational than the mission to which he calls. Mission has definitely been a neglected part of ecclesiology. However, we must not over-compensate by neglecting christology.

PGF and a Warning from Fox News

"Can Rick Warren save the world?"

That question was the subtitle from a Fox News special last night about Rick Warren and his plans for ending "poverty, disease, illiteracy, spiritual emptiness, and egocentric leadership."

Can Rick Warren make an impact in the world? Yes. Can Rick Warren make a positive influence? Yes. Can Rick Warren save the world? No. There is only one Messiah, and Rick Warren ain't him. I don't blame Rick Warren for the Fox News title. I'm sure he was embarrassed. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Warren had a hand in Fox News changing it on their website (Check out before and after).

After attending the Presbyterian Global Fellowship, the offensive Fox News title was a good reminder of the dangers before us. Being missionally-minded must not become a righteouness based on our works. It is easy to be overwhelmed at the pain of the world. Likewise, it is easy to become prideful at our efforts to alleviate suffering. The focus then becomes us. Some might become self-righteous on their own good deeds, but the majority will become burned-out or guilt-ridden because they can't do enough.

Should we reject works? Do we ignore the call to be missional? Heaven forbid. Faith without works is dead, but we must be ever vigiliant to avoid idolatry. The Presbyterian Global Fellowship and our missional congregations must preach and teach the amazing grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We should see obedience to Christ and our good works as gratitude to God. The only way we can be "outwardly focused" is to be "inwardly strong."

I am not suggesting that the leadership of PGF intends anything amiss. I just know that they have hard work ahead of them. I pray for their wisdom and courage.

We cannot save the world. Thankfully, Jesus Christ can and has.

Presbyterian Global Fellowship

I’ve been to Atlanta and back. For the past few days, I’ve been attending the Presbyterian Global Fellowship meeting. This group was born out of evangelical frustration with the fights on sexuality and the financial decimation of the Worldwide Ministries Division of the PCUSA. They are committed to missions abroad and to being missional at home. They are also committed to remaining in the denomination. Several friends recommended that I attend, and I see now that I needed to be there.

I didn’t realize that the stress of pastoral ministry and the frustration caused by the General Assembly have wore me down. Gathering with other evangelicals in Atlanta was therapeutic for me. I wept as I listened to stories of God’s faithfulness. As one speaker suggested, we need to remind each other of who Christ is and what his purpose is for our lives. In the midst of life, we forget too easily.

Clearly, I had a good experience, but I do have concerns. The Presbyterian Global Fellowship is still young, without form or function. We do not know what its relationship with the Presbyterian Church USA will be. We do not know how it will relate to the other renewal groups such as Presbyterians For Renewal, Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship, and the like. We do not know how the fellowship intends to foster the revitalization of congregations. These are not complaints. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that the leadership of the organization has some difficult waters to navigate. General Assembly Moderator Joan Gray was right that they should lead from their knees.

As the organization moves forward, more time will be needed to develop theological clarity. Missional has become a buzz word in churches. In Atlanta, I heard a variety of interpretations of its meaning. Some assumed that missional merely meant more outreach programs. Others saw missional simply in terms of cross-cultural mission trips. Some spoke of organizing the church around mission implying that our unity was found there. I believe these are simplistic understandings of the term. The church is organized around Jesus Christ who sends us into the world. Thankfully some were expressing a more biblical and profound understanding of mission. I hope that these voices will dominate in the future of Presbyterian Global Fellowship.

People were pumped after the meeting this week. A speaker declared that the Atlanta event was the most important event in the PCUSA in twenty years. The truth of that statement remains to be seen. I don’t want to sound like a wet blanket, but the future of our corner of the kingdom of God deserves sober reflection.

Evangelical Politicking

The face of evangelical politics is changing according to Michael Gerson, the chief speechwriter of President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign and first term. In an interview with Christianity Today, Gerson suggests that younger evangelicals are rejecting the one or two issues of the Religious Right and embracing a broader agenda of “social justice.”

Will compassionate conservatism survive rising deficits, the cost of Katrina, and illegal immigration?
There are some members of the Republican Party who do not understand the power and appeal of this set of issues and who have a much more narrow view of government's role…

Until recently, the Republican Party and Christian conservatives have complained that government is the problem. Is that a view they will likely return to?
I think it's a temptation, but I don't think it's going to happen. One reason is because of what's changed in evangelical political involvement.

I think there are lots and lots of young people, in their 20s to 40s, who are very impatient with older models of social engagement like those used by the Religious Right. They understand the importance of the life issues and the family issues, but they know the concern for justice has to be broader and global. At least a good portion of the evangelical movement is looking for leaders who have a broader conception of social justice…

You're starting to sound like Jim Wallis!
No, because I also don't think the answers can be found in the Religious Left. I don't think we can minimize some of the traditional issues. I don't believe it's possible to be concerned about social justice without being concerned about the weakest members of the human family. I also think that America can play an active and positive role in the world and that we're not at fault for everything.

A few comments of my own...

1. As these comments suggest, Compassionate Conservatism is more than a cynical rhetorical device. Gerson believes that it is a real governing principle. Despite six years into an administration which wears the term as a mantle, the movement remains ill-defined. Gerson seems to equate Compassionate Conservatism with a secular version of Christian "social justice." George W. Bush was apparently more telling than many thought when he named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher.

2. Jim Wallis is the founder and editor of Sojourners. He has been the default spokesperson for the Religious Left in the United States. Gerson interestingly doesn't seem to have a problem with Wallis' view of "social justice." Both seem concerned with poor and the downtrodden. Calls for battling the AIDS crisis in Africa or for providing perscription drugs for the poor resonate with Christians of all political stripes. The only difference Gerson suggests is that the Religious Left has walked away from traditional morality.

3. Gerson seems to reject the notion of limited government. He suggests that evangelical resistance to active government in the past was based upon the character of that government and not about the limits of government itself. He may be correct. Since evangelicals have had more power to influence policy, they have been less inclined to limit the government's role.

Although I am sympathetic to Gerson's goals for "justice" in society, I am very suspicious of an energetic and ever-expanding government. The attitude reminds me of the naivete of the social gospel movement a century ago. Government is a blunt instrument, and "hubris" is a real problem. The evangelicals of today need to be reminded of the pervasive problem of sin. Human depravity even pollutes our good intentions. Reinhold Niebuhr has much to teach this generation of evangelicals.

For those wishing to pursue their faith within the society, more thought should be given to the natural limits of government and power. We should realize that local governments, better than centralized ones, promote responsibility and accountability. We should also remember that structures such as the family, the church, and voluntary associations can often promote justice and human dignity even better than government. Most of all, we must know that true justice will remain ellusive on this side of the God's kingdom. We ignore these principles to our peril.

Preaching as Calling

The other day, I was doing some work on the "marks of the Church." What I discovered was an article on renewing congregational life by a mainline pastor printed in the Christian Century in 2000. In the article, there was a quote that intrigued me. The author, Anthony Robinson, writes...

After the dedication of a new community youth center, a leader in my denomination was invited by the mayor of the city to have coffee. The mayor, who happened to be African-American, told the minister, "You know, I appreciate all your efforts in getting this center opened, and I also appreciate your remarks today. But you are a Christian minister and I didn’t hear you say anything that couldn’t have been said by someone else. We need to hear something different from you. We need to hear something from the gospel."

This is a wake-up call to all preachers, including myself. When I first had the thought that God might be calling me into ordained ministry, I had a quandry. Why did I have to be ordained to preach? I mean, we are all called "to make disciples," to be "Christ's ambassadors," or to be Christ's "witnesses." What makes the preacher different? While in seminary, I was not ordained, but I preached every Sunday. What would be different in my preaching after my ordination?

Finally, I accepted a solution albeit an imperfect one. The preacher who is called and ordained must share God's Word. He or she must be Christ's witness. There are times when the gospel may be inconvenient, embarrassing, or even risky. The ordained preacher must speak the Word of God when no one else will.

It is so easy to lose track of this vocation. In the midst of ministry, preachers will acquire multiple interests and talents. Some become junior psychologists. Others are experts in marketing or management. Still others become political activists. These abilities are not bad things. In its own way, each can bring glory to God. A good preacher uses these talents to inform preaching, bringing them in submission to the Word. Occasionally, we forget our calling, and these talents replace our preaching. We've all heard sermons that were merely political diatribes, self-help advice or sociological analysis. Resisting these tempations, we must cry out with John the Baptist, "[Jesus Christ] must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

Teach for America: An Alumnus

The June 2006 edition of Readers Digest has a good article on Wendy Kopp the creator of Teach For America, the national teacher corps. It's like the Peace Corps except instead of going overseas, participants teach in inner-city and rural schools. I'm also an alumnus.

The organization has grown considerably since I was in the Mississippi Delta corps from 1992-1994. TFA is certainly more organized and efficient, but I wonder if it retains the entrepeneural spirit that existed. Back then, ideas about teaching and leadership were coming fast and furious. The organization was very experimental. We would discover (or more likely rediscover) good ideas and reject plenty of bad ones. At least we learned from our mistakes. Most emerged from teaching a bit less naive, more experienced, and committed to Teach for America's mantra--"Every child deserves a quality education."

Laughter Cannot Heal

I recently read an interview with Robin Williams from the April 2006, Readers Digest. The interviewer asked about doing comedy after 9/11. Finally, the interviewer asks…

Readers Digest: But in this case the laughter really did have a healing power?
Robin Williams: Healing isn’t the word. Therapeutic maybe, or cathartic. After being in extreme situations, it kind of brings you back to life.

The interview allows this exchange to stand without comment. A few years ago, I read Anatomy of an Illness by Norman Cousins. In this book, Cousins described the anesthetic effect of laughter. Since that time, I have heard so many people describe the healing properties of laughter that it has become cliché. As a result, Williams words took me by surprise.

As I have reflected on Robin Williams’ words, I think he’s right. Laughter can be therapeutic, cathartic or even medicinal. However, laughter cannot heal. I think of John Belushi or Chris Farley, and the pain which the laughter masked. If laughter actually healed, then both of these comedic greats would still be around. Like other medicines, laughter can be used and abused. Used correctly, laughter can help facilitate true healing. Used incorrectly, it’s like every other drug used to escape the brokenness.

Newsletter: Influential Churches

Dr. John Vaughan, a researcher and consultant to churches, has recently compiled a list of the fifty most influential Protestant churches in America. I’m sorry to tell you that First Presbyterian Church of Vernon did not make the first fifty. In fact, none of the churches in Vernon did. The list is a "who’s who" of mega-churches in growing metropolitan areas. To even be considered for the list, a church had to have more than 2,000 in weekly attendance. Dr. Vaughan compiled this list based on the polling of the pastors from these same mega-churches.

I don’t want to be considered as unappreciative of the hard work that went into the list, but it seems that the results were bound to be skewed. Perhaps if our congregation had made the list, I would feel differently, but it seems that Dr. Vaughan had a particular understanding of "influential." Don’t get me wrong. There are faithful congregations up and down that list. Mega-churches have made and will continue to make a huge impact on the landscape of American Christianity. Still, I wish Dr.Vaughan had asked me what I thought were the most "influential" churches in America.

Now, granted I’m biased. So I would list our congregation at the top of the list. Then I would list Presbyterian churches in Irving, Texas, in Lexington, Indiana, and in Waynesburg, Malvern, Carrollton, Loudonville, and Berea, Ohio. I would also list a Methodist church in Diboll, Texas, a Southern Baptist church near Elaine, Arkansas, a Nazarene church outside of Houston, another Nazarene Church in Times Square, a Methodist church in Cordele, Georgia, and a couple of Roman Catholic churches in New Jersey and Ohio. This is not a complete list, but you can see that my list is varied. These congregations are large and small. They have nothing in common except one thing. They have all made a personal impact on me or the people I love.

When the disciples argued about who was the greatest, Jesus said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). We are the most influential when we serve one another. Staying up all night with a friend in need, providing a meal, or teaching a Sunday school class that no one else will are tangible ways we influence the world for the gospel. The measurement of influence is not attendance, size or budget. Rather, real influence is faithfulness. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed (Matthew 13:31). Starting small and inconsequential, its impact is greater than you can possibly imagine.

Pray for Rain

In my research for sermon on 1 Kings 18:17-39, I discovered an article from Jewish Heritage Online Magazine. The beginning of the article makes much about Israel being a land that is fed by rainwater rather than river water.

Rainfall is a symbol of divine providence. Furthermore, according to the biblical stories, in the great riverine countries a nation's sense of ownership of its land and mastery of its destiny is reinforced, leading to the development of tyrannical regimes and slavery. In land that drink rainwater, on the other hand, man constantly senses his dependence on God and for that reason such a land will sustain a regime of justice, free of subjugation.

Whether ancient Israel was a regime of justice is probably an open question. The Old Testament prophets certainly had their doubts. In the aforementioned passage, Elijah calls the people of Israel to faithfulness and repentance after worshipping the idols of Ba'al. After God embarrasses the prophets of Ba'al on Mount Carmel and the people return to faith, the long drought ends.

Still, there may be some truth to the claim. By this description of places that drink rainwater, the Texas plains must be a land that "will sustain a regime of justice, free of subjugation." Perhaps, we are. Being dependent on God, we certainly are suspicious of those who wish to usurp our freedom. Recognizing the sovereignty of God we, Texans, certainly have a transcendent understanding of justice.

Still, we are tired of our current drought. There may even be some who are willing to give up a bit of that freedom if it would bring some rain. This is one of the driest seasons on record for Wilbarger County, Texas. In the midst of a difficult drought, we've learned our lessons well. Many of us are crying, "Okay God, we've got it. We are ready to move on now."

So we pray for rain. Some may have read about officials in the city of Lubbock calling for a day of prayer and fasting. I was a little surprised to see the story highlighted on the Drudge Report. If I had to guess why Matt Drudge thought the story worthy to link was probably surprise that those quaint Red Staters pray for rain or maybe that the drought is so bad that people are praying in desparation. Either way, the coverage has had another effect. Christians and a few non-Christians from all over the country are now praying for us.

I understand that God is mysterious and beyond our control. That may give little comfort as crops fail and cattle must be sold. Still, we remember the times of blessing. We remember God's faithfulness and his promises to us. We remind each other of these things, and yes, we even remind God.

Lord, please send us rain.

Task Force Never Got Started

Barbara Wheeler asks in her recent Outlook article, "Did the Task Force Succeed?" The answer she suggests is a mix. Where Presbyterians have agreed with the Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force, she counts as success. Where there has been contention or controversy, for her, success is elusive. The reasons for the lack of success, according to Wheeler, are primarily a sex-obsessed secular media and the "church lobbyists."

Admittedly, I am not fond of our new authoritative interpretation. I cannot imagine that something that causes so much confusion can further the peace, unity and purity of the church. Laying those objections aside, the PUP task force never succeeded because it never got started.

I was on the committee that formed the task force at the 2001 General Assembly. We developed its mandate, which was approved overwhelmingly by the General Assembly. Most of us were concerned with the lack of trust within the denomination, and we prayed that we had created something that was not church-as-usual. In response to the Confessing Church Movement, there was a desire to meet churches at the "grassroots." In fact, "grassroots" became one of the catchwords for that year’s Assembly. We purposely wanted to avoid a process that appeared heavy-handed. We did not want a group to make pronouncements from on high.

The moderator of the 212th General Assembly, Sygman Rhee, pushed for a commission like occurred in the 1920s, which dealt with the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. In 2001, our committee rejected the language of "commission" in favor of "task force" because we perceived that a commission could take action on behalf of the entire General Assembly. Instead we wanted an organic process that included "conferring with synods, presbyteries, and congregations."

The task force was "directed to lead the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in spiritual discernment of our Christian identity in and for the 21st Century." Many of us realized that our problems would not be solved by a report of a task force. Our problems are deeper. We have an identity crisis among Presbyterians. We are unsure who we are or what our purpose is. Our fights about ordination standards reveal deeper, more fundamental questions.

Many hoped that the task force would lead the entire denomination in the hard work of theology and spiritual discernment. The task force took another route. They gathered among themselves. They worked in isolation, often behind closed doors. Although much of the task force’s work was commendable, the people in the pews were not particularly involved. Many of us only saw the task force after the discernment process was over. A few months before the 217th General Assembly, the task force was in the presbyteries "selling" their report and policy recommendations.

Imagine someone who goes to a spiritual director needing help in discernment. The spiritual director responds, "I’ll get right to work on that." Then, the director disappears, occasionally reappearing offering updates on her progress. After a few years, the director produces a written report with some discussion questions at the end. The director may have done some discernment, but the person who needs it has gained nothing. I found it telling that when the PCUSA described the work of the task force, the mandate was changed. One bulletin insert used to introduce congregations to the task force’s final report stated, "They were asked to discern the church’s ‘Christian identity in and for the 21st Century.’"

Even if the task force achieved Christian nirvana in their closed-door meetings, the rest of us have not benefited from that process. They may have changed, but we haven’t. Does the denomination in general have a better theological background to make tough decisions? Is there now a consensus of who Jesus is? Do we even understand what the problems are that face our denomination? This hard work remains to be done. Then when individuals in the denomination actually try to engage in discernment by debating the policy recommendations or making suggestions to change them, members of the task force tell us that we are being divisive. The task force believes that its job has been completed with a report and a murky authoritative interpretation. Although some decry their efforts, I believe that the affinity groups in their imperfect way are trying to do what the task force failed to do–to lead the denomination in spiritual discernment. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Finally, I am not suggesting that the problems we face solely rest on the failures of the Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force. To suggest such would make me guilty of the same failings. Unlike the rhetoric that I’ve been hearing, the task force and its recommendations are not Christ or anti-christ. We can only blame ourselves for the impasse that we’ve reached in our life together. We have looked for easy solutions, and we have allowed others to do our work for us. Let us take up the difficult tasks of prayer, worship, theology, and discernment. We have a Savior. Let’s follow him.

La Dolce Vita

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/07/07/ftdolce07.xml

All right, I am convinced. I want to be Italian. Whether true or not, the lifestyle depicted in this article reveals the worst of American and apparently British life. We over-eat, eating lousy food, alone in front of the television or computer screen. We over-work, looking at sleep with suspicion. We are like children trying to stay up later and later thinking we may miss something important. We sit more than we move probably because we are so tired. We live in isolation, sharing a house but rarely a home. I’m ready to pack my bags.

Americans are obsessive with "the pursuit of happiness." Most Americans, however, haven't spent much time concerned with the meaning of happiness. That doesn't mean that Italians have. Instead, they have received a tradition and a culture which just may be more conducive to life in community. Indeed, there are Italians which long to be American or British. They see American life as better than "la vita italiana." The grass is always greener.

Nonetheless, facing the faults of the American life, we can choose something better. I think the Church should speak to these issues. Perhaps, we can offer an alternative to the fast-paced, lonely, excessive American life. We can be something truly counter-cultural.

Do they need missionaries in Italy?

My Dirty Little Secret

Okay, I admit it. I am the intellectual grandchild of Leo Strauss. You know Leo Strauss, the evil father of neo-conservatism. The person who runs the Bush administration from the grave on its quest for world domination.

In college, I studied political philosophy. I even wrote a short thesis on David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein. My professor was a student of Strauss. Through that professor, I became acquainted with other heirs of Strauss--thinkers like Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, and Francis Fukuyama. Strauss is a dense read. I would be surprised if the hyperventilating critics actually have a clue what he thought.

Steven Smith has a nice introduction into the thought of Leo Strauss. Quickly one realizes that the bogeyman of the American left has almost no resemblance to the actual man. Primarily Strauss was concerned with the reading of good books by great thinkers. In the same vein, my professor taught me to read books with the assumption that the author knew more than me. Bringing this humility to a text allowed me to plunge deeply. I wrestled with apparent contradictions, assuming that the author was trying to teach me something.

As Smith recounts, Strauss himself wrestled with questions that few ask anymore. "Is reason or revelation the ultimate guide for life?" "Has the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns been decided in favor of modernity?" and "Are the philosophers or the poets better educators of civic life?" The diversity of thought on these questions by Strauss' students suggests that Strauss himself was not interested in promoting a rigid ideology.

The most difficult part of Strauss is his rediscovery of esoteric writing. In this way of thinking, great writers would not always come out and say what they thought. For example, we cannot assume that the words of a character in a Shakespeare play are Shakespeare's own thoughts and ideas. In fact, they may be the opposite of his own. Perhaps, the character is a foil, or perhaps the dialogue itself is what is important. In a novel, play or dialogue, this may make sense, but Strauss even suggests that prose writers may hide meanings within a text. I found such hidden meanings difficult to ferret out. Perhaps, even the hidden meaning was the product of my imagination. Listening to my professor, you would think that almost every author was a a closet atheist.

Laying that criticism aside, I owe an incredible debt to Leo Strauss and his intellectual heirs. First, I love primary texts. I much rather read an author than about an author. Second, I try to suppress my pride as a read an author. Rather than casting judgment on a text, I try to listen. This attitude was instrumental in me becoming a Christian. Dropping my arrogance, the Holy Spirit opened me to the truth of the Scriptures. Finally, I have learned that words and ideas matter. I am able to ask hard questions. Was Tertullian right that Athens has nothing to do with Jerusalem? When conflict occurs in the biblical text, is there a greater meaning? In my own sermons, where is the gospel and where is my own cultural baggage? What are the idols of our age, and what can we do to avoid them?

For me, Leo Strauss' legacy is a method not an ideology.

Help vs. Solidarity

In "Jesus Nation: Sweaty Solidarity Forever," Jeff Sharlet decries the lack of a serious religious movement on the political left. He is unsatisfied with the smiling face of Jim Wallis on television providing "balance" to spokesmen of the religious right.

Do I care about the religious left? Not particularly, no more than I care about the religious right. Still, I was intrigued with at least one premise of the article. In dealing with the social ills, "help" is insufficient.

Sharlet offers a quote from black theologian, James Cone: "authentic love is not 'help'--not giving Christmas baskets--but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is a kind of power which enables [the oppressed] to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."

I haven't been a fan of Cone since I discovered I fit his description of a "Christo-fascist"--someone who places Jesus Christ at the center of faith. (On the other hand, I have wore the label as a badge of honor. It certainly gets the attention of others.) Moreover, I am deeply suspicious of calls for "redistribution of power." Political leftists have a poor track record. Nonetheless, there is a deeper truth here at which Cone hints. The kingdom of God is more than charity. The kingdom of God is about transformed lives.

Every person who comes into my church seeking assistance needs more than a few bucks. Perhaps, the deeper problems are addiction, destructive relationships or simply poor money management. I tell each one that they need the support of a God and a community that loves them. Unlike Cone, I think there is a place for "Christmas baskets." Still, faithfulness demands that we walk with those in need. More than a hand-out, they need Jesus Christ and his Church. In the words of the article, they need "solidarity" not "help."

I think this lesson taken from a radical like Cone, needs to reverberate in our denomination, locally and nationally. The PCUSA has a ton of opinions on social issues. Most of those opinions are expressed by lobbying the government to change laws and policies. Unfortunately, government policies are unable to provide the "solidarity" that the poor desparately need. Rather than making ourselves feel good through lobbying or throwing money, we need to come alongside the poor and the oppressed.

A few years ago, the PCUSA boycotted Taco Bell. We paid someone half a salary to help organize picket lines. We were concerned about migrant tomato pickers. We could have sent missionaries, lawyers, and teachers to the migrant workers. We could have helped them break the cycles of poverty or navigate the difficulties of immigration law. Instead we settled for one cent higher price per bushel of tomatoes. With inflation, that benefit will soon disappear, but the poverty will remain. "Help" is always easier than "solidarity."

Pastoral Letter: The Need for Discernment

Recently our congregation has begun a process of discernment. We are asking some tough questions about the direction of our congregration. More importantly we are listening to God to give us direction. Here is a pastoral letter to my congregation about the discernment process.

Dear Friends,

Q. How many Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb?
A. What? Change?

Whether warranted or not, Presbyterians have a bad reputation about adapting to change. Let me be the first to say that this is not necessarily a bad thing. In the past few generations, we have seen the world change at a dizzying pace. We should be thankful for many of those changes, but we also should recognize that not every change is good. The church’s role is not to change for change’s sake, but rather we are called to respond in new ways to new situations with the same Jesus Christ. Reaching out to the world with the gospel means translating it into the language and culture of our place and time. At the same time, we use the gospel to critique, to criticize, and to expose the idols of our age.

Our congregation faces a much different world than the one faced by Vernon Presbyterians in 1888 or even in 1988. After years of cultural primacy, Christianity is no longer the dominate force in Western society. As our society becomes more cosmopolitan, it becomes the locus for clashes between various religious traditions and even no religious tradition. For many, truth has become relative, completely dependent on particular context. At the same time, religion has become privatized, a hobby. Even the increasingly large Christian subculture in America looks and acts often like their non-Christian neighbors. For example, high divorce rates, sexual immorality, materialism and biblical illiteracy plague the Church as well as society as a whole. In our modern world, many feel more isolated, more hurried, and less grounded. After years on foreign shores, many missionaries have returned home and acknowledge that the United States is now a mission field.

In the past, the Church has acted like a chaplain to the greater culture. The Church accepted the roles and limits assigned to it. She merely addressed the religious needs of the community. As the culture has changed, the Church must now act as a missionary. Rather than a dispenser of religious goods, she must herald the kingdom of God, proclaiming the good news of God’s reign to a skeptical world.

Our temptation in this time of transition is great. There are plenty who peddle solutions for what ails the Church. Fads and gimmicks abound. Instead of adopting a few quick-fixes, we need to listen intentionally to God. Our congregation has begun a season of discernment. We want to hear God’s call, and we want to respond in faith. In the coming months, we ask for your prayers and participation. We hope that this season will be a time of renewal and revival for our congregation and for you.

Grace & Peace,
James

Natural Backlash?

Concerning the recent actions of the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, I am afraid that only a relative few will become hot and bothered unless the standards actually change. Presbyterians have learned how to distance themselves from the national denomination--Angela Davis, Re-imagining, the Layman-declared "apostate" General Assembly, Israeli divestment, etc. Our congregations have stuck with the denomination through all of this. A confusing and murky Authoritative Interpretation which keeps the standards in place is unlikely tomotivate us to clean house.

Take a cue from our friends in the Episcopal Church. Conservatives have been ticked with the direction of the church for a while. The American hierarchy have been quietly electing priests and even bishops who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or are involved in unrepentant sin. The folks in the pews complained but were satisfied that their congregation was different. When the denomination ordains an openly practicing unrepentant adulterer as a bishop, essentially redefining sin, the folks in the pews couldn't ignore it. An inevitable split is on the way.

It has been my experience that the folks in our pews can't stand defiance, but they can tolerate hypocrisy. Burn a little incense at G-6.0106b but then live your life any way you want. For this reason the PUP Task Force's AI was perfect. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

I raise these issues because I don't think that there is a natural backlash. Yes, plenty of us are mad, and we can fill a bunch of auditoriums easily. However, we can't just wave the flag and expect the church to rally. As pastors, we have a difficult job of teaching and leading. The church is in need of conversion, repentance, and discipleship. I don't expect the hard work to end until my Savior returns.

General Assembly Fallout

I guess that I’ve been pretty quiet about the direction of the Presbyterian Church USA. I was in Birmingham for part of the 217th General Assembly, and I’ve been carefully watching events unfold. My silence on-line has not been matched by silence in my congregation. I have made presentations to the session and to interested parties before and after the assembly.

The General Assembly brought a number of interesting results. We declared that terrorism and suicide bombing are crimes against humanity. (Osama Bin Laden is quaking in his boots now that the Presbyterians have weighed in.) We declared that babies in the womb which are viable should be allowed to live. We backed away from divestment in Israel. We "received" a deeply flawed report on the Trinity as if we received a UPS package for the next door neighbor. (In other words, it carries no weight.) We cut forty missionaries. We even directed the Stated Clerk to lobby the president on the benefits of medical marijuana.

However, all these actions seem to pale in comparison to the issue of sexuality. In 2001, the General Assembly created a task force to lead the denomination in spiritual discernment. Instead, the group met together, discussed, wrote papers, and made policy recommendations. One policy change is the infamous Recommendation 5. Some claim that this recommendation merely affirms traditional Presbyterian polity. The denomination sets national standards, and they are applied at the local levels. Others see this recommendation as allowing local authorities the option to ordain openly unrepentant adulterers. The confusion is great, and every word that comes out of the Stated Clerk’s office creates more of it. The national standards have not changed, we are told again and again, yet no one knows what that means any more. "John Calvin, I’d like you to meet Jacques Derrida."

Now what? There are several groups which are meeting this summer to wrestle with the new situation. Some are talking schism and splits. Others are talking about living faithfully within the new structure. I am willing to be patient.

I used to think that the denomination would split within my lifetime. I don’t think so anymore. Unless the denomination changes dramatically, it will go out with a whimper. Local churches will join together in various associations and partnerships. Some will be sponsored by denominational structures. Others will not. Para-church organizations will continue to multiply. Healthier ministries will prosper. Others will wither on the vine. The 1950s denominational structure built on the models of General Motors or IBM will disappear. Granted the new world looks much messier, but personally, I would shed few tears. I care more about the loss of reformed theology and tradition, but the denomination has already done little to prevent that from happening. Ultimately, I am concerned about our faithfulness to God. By God’s grace, I pledge to be faithful in the PCUSA and whatever may come after.

Rejection of the Religious

When talking to others on the subject of faith and belief, one of my favorite cliche's that I hear is "I'm spiritual but not religious."

What that usually means is the person has rejected "organized religion" in favor of the mystical, the obscure, or a syncretism of one's own creation. Sociologically speaking, there really is no distinction. Spirituality or religion is the same thing. We acknowledge something beyond the material. We reach outward to embrace the divine.

In a fascinating article written around Christmas of 2005, Umberto Eco speaks to the universality of religion.

"Human beings are religious animals. It is psychologically very hard to go through life without the justification, and the hope, provided by religion."

and later...

"It is the role of religion to provide that justification. Religions are systems of belief that enable human beings to justify their existence and which reconcile us to death."

Eco was raised Roman Catholic but has rejected the church. Still he accepts the superiority of the Christian religion. He states, "I have a profound respect for the Christian traditions." Moreover, he specifically calls the religious celebration of Christmas, "a clear and coherent absurdity."

This I would argue is the conservative position. Christianity has proven itself as a religion. It is tried and true compared to the occult and more novel beliefs. As a religion, it has a track record. It's influence in the development of Western Civilization has been on whole a positive for all humanity.

However, the Western Church is dying. Eco notes,

We in Europe have faced a fading of organised religion in recent years. Faith in the Christian churches has been declining.

The ideologies such as communism that promised to supplant religion have failed in spectacular and very public fashion. So we're all still looking for something that will reconcile each of us to the inevitability of our own death.

G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it - he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

The "death of God", or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church -- from strange pagan cults and sects to the silly, sub-Christian superstitions of The Da Vinci Code.

The conservative position is ultimately weak because the superiority of the Christian religion is no guarantee of it's viability. The appeal made by Eco treats Christianity as one choice among many -- granted a superior choice but still merely a choice. That argument already concedes so much. The God we Christians worship is more than a choice. He is the Lord of lords, King of kings. This God has a legitimate claim over all of our lives. If we fail to praise this God, the very rocks will cry out.

Instead, I would argue that Christianity is not a religion. This is not a new thought. Karl Barth takes this position. Religion is about our reaching upward to God. On the other hand, Christianity is about God reaching downward to us. Religion is a human work. Christianity is a divine grace.

Newsletter: The Process of Discernment

There is no doubt that the First Presbyterian Church of Vernon, Texas is blessed. We, in fact, have always been blessed. Lately, however, our blessings have been more apparent to us. There is an excitement in the air, and we have seen new people, new resources, and new opportunities in our midst. Our congregation could have taken these blessings for granted, but instead the leadership of our church decided that we needed to be good stewards of what God has given. The simple truth is God has blessed us to be blessing.

In January 2006, the congregation commissioned a team to lead our congregation in discernment. Much of the work of this team so far has been behind the scenes. However, starting this fall, the congregation as a whole will be engaged in the hard work of discernment. “Discernment,” I am told, comes from the Latin word, discernere, to separate. Like the farmer who separates the wheat from the chaff, we are called to separate God’s vision from all the competing choices.

God’s vision is not ultimately based on marketing research or the latest fads about church growth. Instead, we believe that God’s vision is a gift of grace only recognized when we allow God to touch, shape, and mold our lives. As a result, Scripture, worship, and prayer must remain at the forefront of our discernment process. The Spirit of Christ will use these means to keep us connected to God.

At the same time, we recognize that congregations come in all shapes and sizes. There is not one way to be the church. A violin sounds different from a saxophone or a tuba. God’s grace will manifest itself in different ways in different congregations. The song that we sing will depend on our context. Already, we are looking at the character and needs of Wilbarger County, and the history, culture, talents and shortcomings of our own congregation. The music that God calls from us will be heard in this place and in this time.

Discernment must include an honest appraisal of ourselves and our surroundings along with an openness to God’s grace.

The Humility of Horror

I was reading the New York Times Sunday Book Review this morning. Terrence Rafferty had a review of a number of ghost stories entitled, The Thinking Reader's Guide to Fear. Either my attention span is really short today, or the article was a bore. I couldn't finish it. Perhaps it was the condescending attitude toward the topic.

Nonetheless, there was a quote that intrigued me. After making pains to tell us that respectable people -- "literate, educated, professional-types" -- find horror fiction "repulsive," the author writes...

...the feeling of being at least a little out of control is basic to the experience of horror. What's terrifying in a story by Stephen King or Peter Straub is, finally, nothing less than the sensation of pure helplessness, of confronting something that cannot be conquered — or regulated, or even understood — by reason alone.

At heart, I think that this is correct. I also think that is the reason why the author believes that "literate, educated, professional-types" don't like horror literature. Horror implies a lack of control. Horror suggests that there is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Our attempts of controlling the universe, escaping suffering, or cheating death are folly. This would explain why the conservative hero, Russell Kirk, wrote ghost stories. Human beings are limited in knowledge and capacity. Horror teaches humility.

I know that several Christians get uncomfortable with stories of witches, vampires, and ghosts. Many times that concern is warranted. Many of these stories clearly promote a moral universe foreign to the one taught in Scripture. However, the humility that is taught by good horror literature might be valuable.

Newsletter: We Gather Together

The word Presbyterian comes from the Greek word, presbuteros, which means elder. This word is used seventy-two times in the New Testament. The early church maintained a continuity with the Old Testament using elders in leadership positions. Although we accept that all are called by Christ into ministry. We are also called to particular ministries. Some of us are called to the leadership of the church--to be elders. As Presbyterians, we get our name from the way we organize our life together.

In the Presbyterian Church, there are two classes of elders--Ministers of Word and Sacrament and ruling elders. In our church, the pastor is not the C.E.O. Christ always remains head of the Church, but the pastor and current elders serve together on a session providing leadership and guidance for the church in obedience to Christ.

A long time ago, Presbyterian churches realized that they could accomplish more for God together than apart. The presbytery was the answer to the common call of ministry over a specific geographic area. Ministers and congregations form a presbytery, and it exists to provide accountability for ministers and churches, to prepare people to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, and to support mission. On June 9-10, our congregation will be hosting Palo Duro Presbytery. Elders and pastors from fifty-five churches will soon be on our doorstep. Analogous to the session, they gather to provide leadership and guidance for all of Palo Duro Presbytery.

Every presbytery meeting has the feeling of a family reunion. We come together and see people that we haven’t seen in a long time. There will be hugs, kisses and perhaps, a few tears. We will watch our manners and encourage others to be on their best behavior. We will share stories of joy and sorrow. We will tell the same old worn out jokes. At times, presbytery will be a pleasure, and at others it will be a burden. Still, we will gather as sisters and brothers of Christ--a luxury many take for granted. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book, Life Together, reminds us that many Christians such as the sick, those persecuted, or scattered are unable to afford that luxury. He writes, “It is by the grace of God that a congregation is permitted to gather visibly in this world to share God’s Word and sacrament.” On June 9-10, let us give thanks to God that we can gather together.

Concession to the Complicated?

The April 2006 edition of First Things has an excellent article about Intelligent Design entitled, “Darwin in Dover, PA.” The article got me thinking about the whole question of evolution.

Frankly, I have never been very concerned with evolution and its supposed challenge to God. If I was interested in breeding cattle, I might be very interested in what genetic adaptations make for healthier and stronger animals. In contrast, I am more interested in God’s relationship with creation and our relationships with each other. As a result, Genesis speaks more to me than biology textbooks.

People must realize that there are several questions and categories of questions surrounding the issue of evolution. First, there is the obvious question of science. How well does evolution explain past evidence and predict future natural behavior? Beyond this question, there are cultural, political, and ethical questions. In a society that values the separation of church and state, what do we teach our children? Is it morally responsible for a community to dictate what should be taught to their children? What community standards are immoral to pass on to the next generation? Finally, there are theological questions. What is the role that the Scriptures play in our faith? What is truth? Are nature and revelation in conflict? If so, which takes precedence?

None of these complex questions will be answered with a simple blog entry. Nonetheless, perhaps I can suggest some ground rules. First, Darwin is a straw man. Evolutionary biology has changed a lot since the time of the HMS Beagle. Critics must be honest about who and what they criticize. Second, critics of evolution should not be dismissed out of hand. Many who cling to the science of evolution would be appalled to find themselves in the same camp as promoters of racism and eugenics. Most critics of evolution that I know are not concerned with microbiology but rather with macro things--human relationships, the place of humanity in the created order, and the integrity of the biblical text.

Personally, I must agree that natural selection makes sense. Those whose genetics allow for better adaptation have better chances for survival. Likewise, I accept the concept of class as a helpful sociological tool. I also believe that greed and lust are great motivators. However, I am unwilling to reduce all human behavior to one source a la Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Milton Friedman, or Sigmund Freud. Can evolutionary biology really explain altruism? Can it explain the music of Bach or Mozart? Can it explain Jesus Christ? Every pained explanation attempted falls short. I firmly believe that there is more to life than the material. Life is just a bit more complicated.

Intelligent design suggests that God is in the details. Where natural science is unable to explain, God is there. Maybe, but is ID science? The First Things article suggests “no.” Instead ID is rightly understood as metaphysics. As a compromise, the article asks why not require a philosophy class be taught to high school students including metaphysics. Students could be exposed to Aquinas, Aristotle, and Pascal as well as the skeptical Hume. Such a class would probably meet constitutional muster, and it would prepare students for living in a world where faith is taken seriously. Perhaps, such a class would be a concession that the world is a bit more complicated than some people suggest.

Newsletter: Needs Repeating

Easter poses a special challenge to preachers. For almost 2000 years, people have proclaimed that "Jesus Christ is risen. He is risen indeed." And in a variety of venues, pastors have tried to show the relevance of that profound statement to their congregations. After countless sermons and devotions, what else should be said? Isn’t there a danger of repeating oneself?

I heard a preacher once say, "I’ve preached multiple times on ever character in the Easter story. If only God could have slipped in one more name, I would have another ten years of sermons." There is a whole category of Christian literature which is fictional yet speaks to the death and resurrection of Jesus. In one story, the death of Jesus is told from the perspective of the tree which was hewn to make the cross. In another story, a fourth wise man shows up thirty-something years late and encounters a crucified and then a risen Christ. In still another, a Roman soldier investigating the missing body of Jesus, a la CSI, comes to faith. Each of these stories is a repackaged gospel presented fresh and new.

I see nothing wrong with making imagination a servant of faith, but I wonder why we are so worried about repeating ourselves. Jesus of Nazareth lived showing the compassion of God, calling the world to repentance. This Jesus is our Emmanuel–God with us. He was arrested for blasphemy and sedition, and the Romans crucified him. This act of betrayal and sacrifice had cosmic implications. It becomes the very avenue God uses to reconcile ourselves to Him. After three days, Jesus is raised making his victory complete. Death, sin and evil are destroyed. Here is our good news: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor 15:55).

When we walk through life encumbered with sorrows and pain, we need to be reminded of good news. The gospel may not be original but it remains our victory. In our attention-deficit world some things need repeating. "Tell me the old, old story of Jesus and his love."

Christian Peacemaking Team's Elephant

Pacifism is an honorable position. However, not all pacifists are honorable. Those who believe that Christ’s teachings preclude any violent response under any circumstance are in good company. I am greatly respectful of my Mennonite brothers and sisters and find their arguments helpful. Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed “peacemakers” are not consistent with their arguments.

Jesus tells Peter that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52), yet the Scriptures also acknowledge that the state does not “bear the sword in vain” (Rom 13:4). To reconcile these two positions, Christian pacifists have traditionally accepted that Christians had little role in “bearing the sword.” Church Fathers argued back and forth whether it was legitimate for Christians to serve in the military. For these pacifists, God would ultimately judge Rome (or Washington, D.C.). Today, such a position would prevent Christians from serving in the military, the police, or the president who serves as Commander-in-chief.

The alternative to Christian pacifism is the “just war” position. Where pacifism is simple, “just war” is messy. One has to make judgments about legitimate power, just cause, and the rules of warfare. Good Christians can vary in the application of these principles. Thus, Roman Catholic hierarchy has been critical of the current Iraqi War and the Southern Baptist Convention has not. Although I am not a pacifist, occasionally I tire of the messiness and long for the simplicity of the pacifist's arguments.

I’ve been following the story of the Christian Peacekeeping Team who was kidnapped in Iraq. CPT believe that the war in Iraq is illegal, and multinational troops are destabilizing the region. They are there in Iraq to protest the war and to “get in the way”. A team was captured by insurgents and one member was killed. Based on a tip, multinational troops rescued the team.

On March 23, CPT released a statement, and I was more surprised at what was not mentioned. They gave thanks to God for the release of their members which is right and good. They even had a wonderful statement about Christ’s demand to love our enemies. However they never mentioned the elephant in the room--the actual troops who rescued them. CPT prefers the term “release” rather than “rescue,” and they blame the presence of troops for the instability which led to the kidnapping. To me, there seems to be some ingratitude, and a willingness to excuse the evil acts of the insurgents. I also sense some self-righteousness. I don’t expect their position on the Iraqi War to change, but I wonder if there has been some serious reflections on the proper use of military force. Is this an example where the state was rightfully “bearing the sword”?

In contrast to CPT's rather dissatisfying response, I found the words of Roman Catholic peace activist, Rose Marie Berger, more humble and more helpful. She continues to believe that the Iraqi War is wrong and agrees with CPT. Still, she mentions the troops. After praising and thanking the troops, She writes,

“It would be easy to pit the peacemaker against the soldier - but it would be wrong to do so. There are soldiers who serve ‘the least of these’ in Iraq. It was an unknown American soldier who decided to drape Tom Fox's casket with a flag to honor his sacrifice. And there are peacemakers who thrive more on their own anger, self-righteousness, and personal purity, than on authentic deeply rooted sacrificial love.”

An acknowledgement of the good and evil in us all. Makes this Calvinist’s heart proud.

UPDATE: CPT finally has thanked the troops.

UPDATE: The CPT hostages have decided not to cooperate with coalition forces for debriefing--information which could lead to the rescue of other hostages. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/25/wkemb25.xml

Essential to the Life of the Church

Here is a letter I just sent to Presbyweb concerning the denomination's "Joining Hearts and Hands Campaign."

Dear Editor,

I must concur with Arthur Kinsler in his recent Presbyweb viewpoint, "Fish, or Cut Bait!" If memory serves me correctly, the "Joining Hearts and Hands Campaign" began in response to budget cuts of missionaries. As missionaries retired, the PCUSA was not planning to replace them. Some good intentioned folks felt that the solution was this $40 million dollar campaign.

Beyond the problem of missed goals and restricted funds, the campaign was misguided in the first place. It suggests that new church development and international mission is something extra--beyond the normal stewardship of our denomination.

Most of our churches do not have campaigns to raise money for the electric bill. Those costs are part of the normal budget of the church. Which is more intrinsic to our identity as the church of Jesus Christ--missions or electricity? For all the good work that will be accomplished with the "Joining Hearts and Hands" money, the campaign suggests that mission is something less than essential to the life of the church.

James

What Does a Pastor Do?

Someone recently asked me, "What does a pastor do?" Here are some of my thoughts and the beginning of an answer...

First I am a minister of Word and Sacrament. That means that I must speak God's Word when no one else will. I must also baptize those new to the church, break the bread and pour the wine, and pray for my people. God calls me to build up his church.

I visit parishoners in their homes or at work. I make hospital and emergency visits. I study Scripture and theology. I write. I help with a variety of ministries--as a coach, as a resource person, or as an extra pair of hands. I teach, preach, and lead worship. I volunteer in the community. Finally, I attend tons of meetings.

Every week is a little different especially if there is an emergency. A funeral may mean that I will be with the family for long stretches. I may have little time to do anything else.

A pastor friend says that we are professional lovers. (I know that sounds strange.) A pastor loves the Lord and shares that passion with the congregation through sermons and lessons. A pastor is also around for the most of the important events of life--birth, graduation, wedding, crisises, death. All of these occasions are opportunities to share God's love with others. We are called to love our parishoners and walk with them through life being a constant witness to Jesus Christ.

Where others may be unable or unwilling, we must ask, "What is God up to in this situation?"

Aslan and Atonement

Not only is this blog rarely original, but it is rarely timely as well. For instance, I almost never read the Presbyterian Outlook on-time. I catch major articles highlighted on Presbyweb and then receive the dead-tree version second-hand from a parishioner. (She is so nice to give me her copy when she finishes it.) Nonetheless, I get my copy fairly late. Today, I happened to be reading the December 26, 2005 issue of the Outlook.

Inside was a review of the movie, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Now, C.S. Lewis was a life-changing author for me. I am inclined to like the movie, and despite quibbles, which I won't describe here, I thought it was a decent adaptation of the book. What I found strange was the reviewer's choice of words.

If you don't know the story, there is a witch who has wrecked havoc on a magical place called Narnia. Aslan is a lion, Narnia's protector and savior. When I was young, I didn't catch the Christian imagery. Now that I am older, I see that the whole book is drenched in it. Here's how the movie reviewer described the climatic scene.

What the evil Ice Queen [the witch] doesn't understand is that even if she defeats the lion, she still loses. His sacrificial death serves as such an inspiration to his followers that he remains alive to them (a thinly-veiled Christological reference."

The only veil I see is the one that the reviewer is using to cover up traditional soteriology. In the book (and the movie for that matter), Aslan offers himself as a sacrifice. He is killed, and he comes back to life. His death is more than an "inspiration to his followers." The success of their battle against the forces of evil are dependent on the much alive Aslan.

Some dislike the book and the movie for the overt Christian symbolism. They believe C.S. Lewis had an agenda, but this reviewer reveals his own. I wonder if this obvious misreading of the Aslan's death and resurrection belies attitudes about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Too many times I have heard people (including clergy) suggest that Christ's death was important because it inspired the disciples. His great sacrifice of love was so powerful that the apostles believed that it was like Jesus never died. Jesus was alive in their hearts. You can believe that if you want, but that has not been the position of the Church or the Scriptures. Clearly, Christians have believed that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. The tomb was empty.

Is it possible that the author is interpreting Aslan through his own understanding of Christ?

Newsletter: Luck Has Nothing to Do With It

I don’t think I have a drop of Irish blood coursing through my veins. Nonetheless, I will be beaming with pride this St. Patrick’s Day. I won’t be drinking green beer or wearing a “kiss me I’m Irish” button. I won’t be looking for leprechauns or pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. What I will do is offer a little prayer of thanksgiving for Patrick, the evangelist of Ireland. Here was a man of strength and passion, yet also humility. He grew up in a Christian home in England, on the outskirts of the Roman Empire. Patrick’s father was a deacon in the church; his grandfather was an elder. He was baptized in the church, and like some who grow up in the church took his faith for granted. At less than sixteen, he was kidnapped during a pirate raid and taken to Ireland. He was made a slave, and in this crisis, he rediscovered his faith. Patrick writes, “And my soul was restless within me so that in a single day I would say as many as a hundred prayers, and almost as many in the night…”

After six years, Patrick heard a voice in the night directing him to escape. Following the voice, he made his way to the coast and obtained passage on a ship bound back to England. His family welcomed him home, but somehow he remained restless. In England, he dreamed that the Irish were calling him back, not as a slave, but as one who proclaimed the good news of Jesus Christ. Patrick trained for the pastorate, and he returned to Ireland. His Latin was never very good. His writing style was never very accomplished. Patrick called himself an “ignoramus.” Despite these shortcomings, thousands came to know Jesus through Patrick’s preaching and teaching. Patrick loved the Lord, loved the Scriptures, and loved the Irish. Through Patrick, God brought about the peaceful conversion of many of the warring tribes of Ireland. In a few generations, Irish warriors with the skulls of their victims hanging from their belts were replaced by Irish monks with copies of the Bible and the Church Fathers hanging from their belts.

Ever since I heard his story, Patrick has been a hero of mine. His love, his compassion, his humility, and his missionary zeal are lessons for all Christians. We don’t have to be Irish to claim Patrick, just Christian.

Davey and Goliath meet Mister Rogers

I recently found a little book in the bargain shelf at a local Christian bookstore. The book looked corny, but I was intrigued. You can find my review of it on Amazon.com. The book was about Mister Rogers, from the PBS children’s series. Fred Rogers was an ordained minister in the United Presbyterian Church. He attended seminary at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary many years before I did.

According to the book, there was a struggle whether he would be ordained since he was not pastoring a congregation. To be honest, I don’t think I would have voted to ordain him. All Christians are called to service. Ordination is for particular ministry--the ministry of Word and Sacrament, deacons, and ruling elders. To ordain outside of those particular ministries suggests something less than the priesthood of all believers. Ordination is no longer for the sake of the church, but instead it becomes a reward for theological education or for doing really good works. There should be no hierarchy within the church. The person who digs ditches to the glory of God is doing something just as important as the person who runs a soup kitchen. Ordination is about taking on the yoke of Christ for the care of his church.

But I digress. Fred Rogers was ordained with the understanding that he would develop a children’s program as an outreach for the denomination. Only later would denominational officials call Fred Rogers and inform him that the money did not exist for his program. What a missed opportunity. With Fred Rogers at the helm, Presbyterians could have expressed on television Christ‘s loving words, “Let the children come to me.” The Lutherans had a cool show in Davey and Goliath. It remains one the best investments in children’s religious broadcasting. Why couldn’t the Presbyterians have done that?

Sharing the Pain

The Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCUSA is concerned about the denomination’s plan to divest from Israel. Frankly, I believe that the decision to go down the road was foolish at best. I appreciate the moderator’s concern, and I hope the General Assembly Council heeds his advice to provide guidance. What I find interesting is the Presbyterian News Service’s depiction of the moderator’s nuanced approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The moderator said that, when he visited the children's section of the Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, he was able to imagine his own son's name being read among those of the dead. And he said he also remembers that, during his first visit to the Holy Land, four years ago, he visited Bethlehem, a town under house arrest, and noticed that children woke up in the morning and asked whether the curfew had been lifted, much as he had asked about snow days when he was a boy.

Holding that dual tension, he said, requires empathic listening to both stories, and sharing the pain of both parties, rather than simply siding with one.

Now, it’s true that Palestinians have suffered a great deal. The average Palestinian deserves better than to be limited by curfews and walls. However, one overwhelming question comes to mind. Does our moderator believe that the systematic slaughter of Jews and a curfew are morally equivalent? I also find it strange that the moderator must reach into the past of Nazi Germany for a wrong perpetrated on the people of Israel. A modern Israeli might think of a stream of suicide bombers killing innocents. A curfew may provide annoyance for children and be economically devastating to adults. However, many Israelis are willing to bear that cost for security.

The real tension is how can Palestinians exercise freedom -- economic freedom and freedom of movement -- and the Israelis be free from violence. Here is the debate that we are not having as a denomination.

Jabez in Africa

I receive Sojourners weekly e-mail update. I read it to learn each week that the "monologue of the religious right is over." Sadly, Sojourners spends so much time telling me that the religious right really isn't Christian that there remains little time to actually engage in dialogue. Occasionally there is an interesting article or a link, and I was intrigued by David Batstone's commentary about the Prayer of Jabez author, Bruce Wilkinson.

Apparently, Wilkinson went to Africa a few years ago to minister to victims of AIDS. Sadly, he appears that he has walked away from the project out of frustration. My entire knowledge of the controversy is from Batstone's commentary. As a result, I don't think it would be fair for me to editorialize.

Despite serious concerns with the theology depicted in the Prayer of Jabez, I hate to see Wilkinson find disappointment. I pray that he has gained wisdom from the experience, and I hope that ministries to AIDS victims in Africa will continue.

Thank God for Robert Schuller

I took a seminary class last week as continuing education. It was a fairly cranky group, which is usually the case when pastors get together. The conversation was critical, which is good. Occasionally, it was more so, which probably wasn’t good. We would complain about a number of well-known pastors and authors. Once someone mentioned Robert Schuller’s name, and the barbs flew.

A pastor pulled me aside and said, “You know. I once attended a preaching workshop by Schuller. He told us that he never criticized anyone in preaching that was not there to defend himself.”

How Christian. That certainly knocks my self-righteousness down a few notches.

Newsletter: Living on the Frontier

“Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away,

behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Driving along the highways and byways of the state of Texas, I have always been intrigued by those historical markers. Each one tells a story about the history of our great state. Some are poignant. Some are fascinating. Others are baffling. That someone took the time to mark each these sites reveals a deep sense of history and heritage by Texans. What I find ironic about our sense of history is actually how young our state is. Speaking with members of our congregation, I realize that our community of Vernon is only one or two generations removed from being the frontier. As settlers moved to this area, they lived on the edge of two worlds. They lived in the civilization that they brought with them, and they lived on the edge of a vast wilderness.

As Christians, we also live on a frontier. We are called to live as Christ’s new creation. At the same time, we continue to live in a world which “groans” for redemption (Romans 8:22). We live between the old and new order. We live our lives on the edge. As the pioneer establishes an outpost of civilization, we establish an outpost for God’s new creation. We desire that our congregation will be a people of forgiveness, of love, of grace. We desire to a people after God’s own heart. As we live on the frontier, we will be witnesses of Jesus Christ.

From the beginning, God had a dream for his creation. That creation was corrupted by sin and is redeemed by Jesus Christ. Throughout it all, God’s dream remains. As we enter 2006, our Sunday school classes will explore God’s dream for all of creation. Join us as we live life on the frontier.

Hymns and True Community

I read an article in the December edition of Presbyterians Today. The entire issue was about worship music, and the worship wars which are prevalent in congregation. Eva Stimson, the editor of Presbyterians Today, shared a story about “Archie.”

“One Sunday morning an elderly member of my congregation -- I’ll call him ‘Archie’ -- stood up in the sanctuary and said he really wished we could sing ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ in worship. Why, asked Archie in a plaintive voice, was this song no longer welcome in our Presbyterian hymnal…But I do remember the awkward silence that followed the outburst. It was painfully obvious that most of the rest of us in the church did not share his taste in hymns.”

I certainly hope that we are not calling this man, Archie, as an allusion to Archie Bunker--the backward thinking bigot. Reducing this elderly man to a caricature really isn’t fair. Apparently, members of the church are offended by the use of militaristic imagery in “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Back before the term, “politically correct,” was in vogue, mainline hymnals were purged of sexist, militaristic, and insensitive lyrics. Many “Archies” are still hurting from being told that their beloved hymns are immoral. In fact, truth be told, I am an “Archie.” I see nothing wrong in the hymn.

But the story doesn’t end here. Archie is diagnosed with cancer. He is dying. One of the last Sundays that he is able to attend church, the congregation sings, “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

“Even the committed pacifists in our pews belted out lyrics about the church being ‘like a mighty army’ and ‘marching as to war.’ For a moment those of us who normally cringe when militaristic images are applied to faith were experiencing the hymn as our friend Archie did -- not as a throwback to the Crusades, but as a rallying cry to discipleship in a time of fear and danger. Archie’s face shone. It was a moment of true community.”

I hate to argue with a moment of true community, but on a certain level this troubles me. If the hymn is inherently immoral, why sing it at all? If it is not, which is one implication of the story, why do we have to wait until Archie is in the final stages of cancer before we can sing it? I know these people were being gracious and loving, but indulging a dying man like this seems patronizing. What would be so wrong singing the song once a year while the man was living? What about singing it now that Archie is gone as we remember the communion of saints? Could a moment of true community be expanded or extended?

I thought that the hymn has always been meant to be a “rallying cry to discipleship.” If it has been taken as otherwise, the wiser course would be to correct misunderstandings, not ban the hymn.

Newsletter: Christmas in Narnia

In the book, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis tells the wonderful story of four children from our world entering the magical world of Narnia. The problem is that Narnia is being held hostage by a horrible witch. By her magic, she has made it winter in Narnia. As one of the characters says, "always winter but never Christmas." Under the snow, Narnia remains frightened and lifeless. One of the first signs that the witch’s power is breaking is a visit by Father Christmas. C.S. Lewis’ friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, the author the Lord of the Rings, advised Lewis not to include the scene with Father Christmas. He felt that it would create confusion. Nonetheless, Lewis rejected the advice of his friend. Christmas would come to Narnia.

We don’t live in Narnia, but we are experienced with winter. Snow may not be very common, but we understand chilling temperatures and a wind that cuts like a knife. The plants and trees become dormant, and a dreary brown dominates the landscape. We also recognize that winter is not dependent on the calendar. We have all experienced chilling seasons in our own lives. Those are the times when we are blown about by events and a dreary melancholy dominates our moral, spiritual, and emotional landscape. Who wouldn’t welcome a visit from Father Christmas during these times?

That’s what the Christmas season is about. The people of Israel understood winter. They understood slavery and domination as they waited pensively for the Messiah. Christmas comes and demonstrates that winter is only for a season. The tyranny of winter is temporary. The birth, life, death, resurrection, and eventual return of Jesus assures us that our winters will break into spring. The White Witch of Narnia knows that if Christmas never comes, her rule will be permanent. But Christmas cannot be stopped.

Our God is on the move. Merry Christmas.

Newsletter: Pilgrims and Pioneers

The great Puritan, John Bunyan, titled his book about Christian discipleship, "Pilgrims Progress." Sadly, we don’t usually associate pilgrimage and the Christian life. In fact, the only time our thoughts settle on pilgrims at all is around the end of November. Next to the cans of pumpkin and cranberry sauce are cardboard cut-outs of smiling, black and white clad pilgrims carrying blunderbusses. They remain a cultural memory, more shadow than substance.

Still Bunyan knew his Bible, and his words were chosen carefully. Paul reminds the Philippians that "our commonwealth is in heaven" (3:20). Peter calls the church, "exiles" or "sojourners" (1 Peter 1:1). The Christian life is journey, and we must realize that ultimately this fallen world is not our home. We are pilgrims through this land.

Those words are a comfort. How many times are we told, "The world ain’t fair"? Acknowledging the truth of the comment, we still wish that it was. We don’t want to submit to the injustice and the inequities of the world. Knowing that we are mere pilgrims helps keep us sane. No wonder we act different. No wonder we love our enemies. No wonder we forgive one another. We don’t really belong here.

That being said, some have taken a comfort and made it a hiding place. As citizens of God’s kingdom who reside in the kingdom of the world, we understand that folks don’t understand us. We recognize that ultimately God will set things right. We long for the sweet-by-and-by. Our danger lies in ignoring the world around us. As someone once complained, "Christians are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good." That is a misunderstanding of the faith we profess.

Our longing for home drives our desire for mercy here. We live in a heavenly colony–an outpost for God on a wild frontier. Not only are we pilgrims, but we are also pioneers. We live and love differently than the world, witnessing to the good news of Jesus Christ. We are called to be peacemakers in a world without peace, to thirst for righteousness in a world which has a price for everything. We make an impact, following the teachings of our Lord in a world which remains hostile to it.

Newsletter: People of the Book

Christians, they say, are people of the book. That book is the Bible. As the Westminster Confession states, the Scriptures are our "rule of faith and life." Our knowledge of God is rooted in the Scriptures alone. However, I believe that most of us are people of another book as well. On my desk, not to far from my Bible is the bible of the twenty-first century America, the day-planner.

Whether paper or electronic, simple or complex, most of us have some kind of day-planner. The most disorganized among us have several. Even our youth are careful about their schedules--squeezing every minute out of their weeks. Our second grader, Thomas, has recently gotten his first planner. Every day, he carefully records his assignments. His parents hope that he will grow up to be a proper Presbyterian, doing everything "decently and in order."

Although we in the Church may have fights over the authority of Scripture, I am amazed that we have no difficulty with the authority of day-planners. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time some asks you for an appointment.

"I'm sorry, but my calendar is full that day."
"Oh, how how about next week."

No one questions the calendar. Once something is written there it is as sacred as the Word of God.

All this being said, what do our day-planners say about us? Exercising careful stewardship over time means more than knowing where it all went. We also have the responsibility to make priorities. All of us should take a careful look at our day planners. Do our schedules allow time for prayer, Bible reading, and worship? Do we have time to build relationships with friends and family? Do we allow time for Sabbath? Our spiritual lives take time. If we live by our day-planners, then they should reflect that fact.

Every moment is a precious gift from God. Not a single one should be wasted. Every moment, every appointment, every meeting should be dedicated to God.

Newsletter: Wrestling with Katrina

When adversity struck the biblical character of Job, only his wife and friends were on hand to offer their observations and criticisms. After Hurricane Katrina, a plethora of cable news reporters offered commentary 24 hours-a-day, every day. The real pain and suffering of the Gulf coast came into our homes every moment. How many times did the media personages stick microphones under the tired faces and ask, "How do you feel? Tell me about your experiences." The airwaves have been filled with accusations and questions:

"Why did local, state, and federal officials respond the way they did?"
"Why were we not better prepared?"
"Why did so many have to die?"
"Why are so many hurting?"
"Why..."

From the belly of the fish, Jonah cried, "For thou didst cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was round about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me" (Jonah 2:3). This month, these words could have been spoken from New Orleans, Gulfport or Bogalusa. Where is God when the bad stuff happens?

Theologians call this question, "theodicy" meaning "the justice of God." If God is good, and God is all powerful, why can't little children in Mississippi find their parents? A variety of answers have been offered. God has granted us free will. The devil and his minions are at work. Original sin has corrupted all of creation. Suffering serves as spiritual training wheels. There is some truth in these and others that could be added to the list. Nonetheless, all explanations remain unsatisfying in the face of a Katrina. We don't want an explanation. We want a solution.

Looking at the death and resurrection of Jesus, we know that pain and sorrow do not get the last word. We have a hope rooted firmly because of what God has already accomplished. We are a people who believe the good news of God despite what we see on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. We are to live and love according to God's greater reality. That is the root of the Christian understanding of mission. In the face of hopelessness, we witness to the eternal hope of our Lord and Savior.

Grace and Peace,
James

Newsletter: Happy New Year!

The giant lighted ball has not dropped in Times Square, and Dick Clark is conspicuously absent from our televisions, but it is the start of a new year at our church. The session and the committees are working hard to make goals for next year. We are trying to discern where God is leading this church. I’m excited about the direction that our congregation is heading. We have some wonderful opportunities ahead of us.

I’ve always thought that August seems a better start of the year than January. Perhaps, I have been conditioned by 28 years of schooling--my education, Thomas’ elementary experience, and my time as a public school teacher. I never made resolutions on January 1st. I began mine on the first day of school. For some reason, brand new spiral notebooks and unsharpened yellow pencils have always inspired optimism in me. Maybe I’m weird, but new pencil boxes, new scissors and a new bottle of glue suggested that life had limitless possibilities. The slate was wiped clean, and life began anew.

Unfortunately, the optimism of the first day of school never lasts. Before breaking our first crayon, the world hands out disappointment. We run out of erasers long before we run out of pencils. After countless years, we are again surprised by our broken promises. Still, God remains faithful. Thankfully, hope is not based on new school supplies. God’s kept promises sustain us long after our good intentions like our markers have run dry.

As we prepare for the future of our congregation, we will occasionally face disappointment. All the great plans we make will not turn out exactly as expected. Our discernment is imperfect. Our plans are merely poor reflections of God’s plans. Still, I remain excited and optimistic. “The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps” (Proverbs 16:9) The certainty of God’s love overshadows our missteps. God’s plans do not fail. That is the source of our hope and joy.