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.

Tsunami Hymn

I just found this hymn written on the occasion of the occasion of the recent Asian tsunami. It is set to Bach's "Passion Chorale." Although we need to learn that lamentation is an appropriate response of faith, this hymn does not do it for me.

http://www.gbod.org/worship/music/greattsunami-gillette.pdf

This must be the first time that I've heard the words, "Sewage is washed down river," in a hymn.

That being said, there are a number of hymns of Carolyn Winfrey Gillette that I enjoy--including some settings of biblical passages and the Apostles Creed.

http://firstpresby.org/hymnlist.htm

Grace & Peace,
James

Bishop Spong and his Clerical Collar

I finally saw Resurrection: Searching for Answers, a 20/20 special on ABC. For a secular report, I found it balanced. I’m so relieved that ABC did not once again display their collection of hackneyed "scholars" from the Jesus Seminar, peddling their Nineteenth Century observations as new and enlightened. For those interested in that dog and pony show, 20/20 did give air time to Bishop John Shelby Spong.

On the ABC special, like every television appearance of him that I’ve seen, Bishop Spong was dressed in his clerical collar. The clerical collar symbolizes being chained or enslaved to Jesus Christ. Such language bothers the bishop. One might wonder why Spong chooses to display such backward and primitive symbols. My guess is that Spong wishes to gain media attention. Put any old critic of Christianity in a clerical collar, and you have an exciting scandal on your hand. He uses the instant credibility gained from wearing the collar to deny cherished truths of the faith, such as the resurrection. Whether he intends it or not, the clerical collar serves as a Trojan horse allowing his every attack to score greater damage. Interestingly, the retired right reverend who rails against the hierarchical church has no qualms about benefitting from his rank. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Trinity III: Creative Language

Some who have read the last few posts probably think that I’m just cranky and unappreciative of metaphor and creative language. The draft authors cite John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 46:3, suggesting his openness to female imagery in speaking about God. Although I quoted the verse in the last post, here it is again.

“Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb;” (Isaiah 46:3, NRSV)

The verse does give feminine characteristics to God. Here is what John Calvin writes.

…Here the Prophet beautifully points out the vast difference between the true God and idols. Having formerly said that the Babylonian gods must be drawn on waggons and carts, because they consist of dead matter, he now ascribes a widely different office to the God of Israel, namely, that he "carries" his people, like a mother, who carries the child in her womb, and afterwards carries it in her bosom…

This is a very expressive metaphor, by which God compares himself to a mother who carries a child in her womb. He speaks of the past time, when he began to give them testimonies of his grace. Yet the words might be taken as meaning simply that God kindly nourished that people, like an infant taken from its mother's womb, and carried it in his bosom…

If it be objected, that God is everywhere called "a Father," and that this title is more appropriate to him, I reply, that no figures of speech can describe God's extraordinary affection towards us; for it is infinite and various; so that, if all that can be said or imagined about love were brought together into one, yet it would be surpassed by the greatness of the love of God. By no metaphor, therefore, can his incomparable goodness be described. If you understand it, simply to mean that God, from the time that he begat them, gently carried and nourished them in his bosom, this will agree admirably with what we find in the Song of Moses,

"He bore them, and carried them, as an eagle carrieth her young on her wings."

In a word, the intention of the Prophet is to shew, that the Jews, if they do not choose to forget their descent, cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that they were not begotten in vain, and that God, who has manifested himself to be both their Father and their Mother, will always assist them; and likewise, that they have known his power by uninterrupted experience, so that they ought not to pay homage to idols.

“God cares for us like a mother.” “We suckle upon the word which God alone gives.” I can accept creative language, even feminine imagery for God. Still, I am concerned about the limitations of all theological language. Whether traditional or new, theological language must never be used to further an ideology. Likewise, the acceptance of feminine imagery for God does not mean the replacement of the traditional formulation of the Trinity.

Calvin suggests, at least here, that he himself is not too bothered by feminine imagery for God. If we grant that Calvin was a pretty smart guy, one might ask why he did not discard the traditional formulation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Calvin did not even supplement the traditional language with the “historically faithful yet freshly imaginative”. Perhaps one reason might be that with other language we would lose too much. The Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit says much about our understanding of Christology and soteriology. Other formulations are lacking. Be creative, but avoid giving up the heart of the faith.

Trinity II: Muddy Metaphor

I’m still considering the recent document produced by a task force of the PCUSA, “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing.” As I mentioned in my last post, our language for the Trinity is not a simple analogy which can be changed with creative whim. Nonetheless, the authors of the draft statement give us several new examples declaring them, “historically faithful yet freshly imaginative.” Here are some examples:

As we worship, the Triune God is the One to Whom, the One by Whom, and the One in Whom we offer our praise (Basil of Caesarea).

As we seek God's grace and wholeness, acknowledging the sin and brokenness in us, our human communities, and the creation, the Triune God is our Rainbow of Promise, our Ark of Salvation, and our Dove of Peace.

As we read, proclaim, hear, and live out the message of Scripture, theTriune God is known to us as Speaker, Word, and Breath.

In baptism, the Triune God is for us Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River. (BCW, p. 412; John 4:10, 13-14; John 7:37).

As we are born anew by water and the Spirit, the Triune God is Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, and Life-giving Womb (Isaiah 49:15; 66:13; Matthew 3:17; Isaiah 46:3).

As we grow in grace, the Triune God is our Sun, Ray, and Warmth (Gregory of Nyssa).

As we offer ourselves, our resources, and our gratitude in stewardship and Eucharist, the Triune God is Giver, Gift, and Giving.

In celebrating the communion of our life together in Christ, the Triune God is Lover, Beloved, and the Love that binds together Lover and Beloved (Augustine).

As members of the believing community, we acknowledge the Triune God as our Rock, Cornerstone, and Temple (Psalm 28:1, Ephesians 2:20-21).

When we must speak of God's wrath in the face of evil, the Triune God is for us Fire that Consumes, Hammer that Breaks, Storm that Melts Mountains(Hebrews 12:20, Jeremiah 23:29, Psalm 97:5).

Each of these examples is problematic.

I can’t speak to each of the historical examples, but I am aware that Augustine’s formulation is taken from his theological analysis. I suspect the references to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa similarly taken from larger theological works. Using this formulations apart from the greater theological context is misleading. Moreover, Augustine uses his language to clarify the meaning of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not replace it.

In addition, the scriptural examples are not actually scriptural. Instead, the images are strewn together by cutting and pasting biblical metaphor and language. Just because each component of the threesome may reference Scripture, the whole is not necessarily the sum of its parts. The internal relationship within the three is not implied by the Scripture itself. For example, although each of the words, rock, cornerstone and temple, exist in Scripture, they do not exist together. For that matter, what is the relationship between rock, cornerstone and temple? Is the Cornerstone hewn from the Rock? Are the bricks of the Temple hewn from the Rock? What is the real relationship between the three? Is that relationship consistent with what we know about the Trinity?

Likewise, the biblical references for many of the examples are suspect. Consider the following examples:

…the Triune God is our Rainbow of Promise, our Ark of Salvation, and our Dove of Peace.

Here is a biblical allusion to the story of Noah. I actually like the comparison between the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and the ark which saves humanity. Granted, the ark has often been used as a symbol for the Church, but the themes of salvation in the story are rich. However, calling the first person of the Trinity a rainbow misses the mark. It confuses the sign of God’s covenant with God. Likewise, the internal relationship between rainbow, ark, and dove also seems remote to the Trinity.

…we acknowledge the Triune God as our Rock, Cornerstone, and Temple.

The most confusing reference here is for the third person of the Trinity. Consider the Scriptural reference:

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Ephesians 2:21-22)

It’s pretty clear from the context that the Temple is the community of faith, the Church. The Spirit is not the Temple. The Spirit could be understood as who binds Church to Christ and one to each other. Given this, a better representation for Spirit might be Mortar. Even this is a poor excuse for the traditional language. Rock, Cornerstone and Temple (Mortar) cannot be a personal God. The whole thing creates more confusion than it clarifies.

…the Triune God is Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child, and Life-giving Womb.

Again the metaphor for the third person of the Trinity has scant or nonexistent biblical support. Here is the text that the draft authors used for support:

“Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb;” (Isaiah 46:3, NRSV)

How does this suggest that the Spirit is like a womb? If we consider the Nicene Creed which states that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,” does that mean the Womb proceeds from the Mother and the Child? Does any of this make sense?

Trinity I: Analogous Language?

The 212th General Assembly (2000) authorized the formation of a task force to study the doctrine of the Trinity. The task force has produced a thirty-five page draft paper entitled, “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing.” The Office of Theology and Worship of the PCUSA is looking for feedback on the document.

Although I’m glad, that we are writing papers speaking to the importance of the Trinity. I am also pleased at the praise the paper affords the traditional formulation of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

With the witness of Scripture, the ecumenical creeds, and the Reformed confessions and liturgies, we regularly speak of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Presbyterian Church (USA) respects and values this way of speaking of the Triune God, resisting any tendency to discard or diminish it. The language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etched in Scripture and creed, remains an indispensable anchor for our efforts to speak faithfully of God. If our lifeline to this anchor is frayed or severed, the historic faith of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church risks being set adrift.

Nevertheless, the authors of the draft paper suggest that all language of the Trinity is merely analogy. I’m not sure that I agree. For early Christians and for centuries afterward, these titles were not mere analogies. For example, to what would the language of “Holy Spirit” be analogous? Moreover, calling God, Father, and Jesus, the Son, speaks of the special relationship between God and Jesus. In the Scriptures, Jesus calls God, his Father, several times. Elsewhere God announces on different occasions that Jesus is “my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” These references are not hidden in parables. They are not simile or metaphor. The writers of Scripture understood them as titles for God and Jesus. Biblical writers would see a difference between, for example, calling Jesus, “the son of God,” and “the cornerstone.” Moreover, the only direct biblical mandate we have for naming the Trinity in worship (Matthew 28:19) is the traditional language -- Jesus tells the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I will grant that our theological language is limited. Even the traditional language of the Trinity may be abused or misunderstood. I believe the Church should teach, clarify, and warn against the abuse of the language. Instead, the draft authors want to add to the confusion by creating inferior substitutes.

Prudence & the Doctrine of Sin

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/opinion/05brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks&oref=login

I must make a confession. I really enjoy reading David Brooks. His amateur anthropology of the American situation is perceptive and engaging. His breezy writing style disarms readers. He is a compelling essayist because he loves his subject matter. That being said, Brooks has his shortcomings. He is better suited to the medium of the essay. His books read like a string of essays, not all of the same quality. He also has a tendency of simplification. He sees modern American life as self-contradictory (for example, he celebrates the rise of the bourgeois bohemians), and then celebrates the synthesis.

In a recent column for the New York Times, Brooks appears at his best and not-so-best. Writing about the continuing American debate between the religious and secular, he lifts up the example of Abraham Lincoln.

“…Lincoln was neither a scoffer nor a guy who could talk directly to God. Instead, he wrestled with faith, longing to be more religious, but never getting there.”

Brooks sees Lincoln as the solution to our cultural divide. We need to acknowledge the great power of religion, yet we shouldn’t be too quick to embrace it.

“Today, a lot of us are stuck in Lincoln's land. We reject the bland relativism of the militant secularists. We reject the smug ignorance of, say, a Robert Kuttner, who recently argued that the culture war is a contest between enlightened reason and dogmatic absolutism. But neither can we share the conviction of the orthodox believers, like the new pope, who find maximum freedom in obedience to eternal truth. We're a little nervous about the perfectionism that often infects evangelical politics, the rush to crash through procedural checks and balances in order to reach the point of maximum moral correctness.”

I agree with Brooks that Lincoln’s devotion to “prudence” would benefit Christians in politics. Pat Robertson’s desire to deny Muslims appointments as judges solely based upon their faith is a wonderful case in point. Some conservatives are concerned that some judges are being filibustered based upon their religious beliefs rather than how they would judge. In contrast, Robertson’s words implies that religious tests are okay as long as they don’t apply to conservative Christians. “Prudence” would dictate that Robertson’s position is blatantly unfair.

However, I disagree with David Brooks that “prudence” is found only outside of orthodox religious belief. Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity, has understood that humanity has been corrupted by sin. As a result, all human activity, including our good works, are tainted. The good intentions of political reformers are not enough. The “rush to crash through procedural checks and balances” is not mandated by the Christian religion. The doctrine of humanity’s sinfulness should give Christians the healthy dose of skepticism that Brooks desires.

Brooks is right to be critical of some evangelical Christians in the public square, but in the process, he has slandered many more.

Reality TV & Christian Disciplines

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/30/ntv230.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/30/ixhome.html

Apparently the latest incarnation of reality TV has actually made a real world impact. The show was produced in England for the BBC 2 and is called, “The Monastery.” Five men including an atheist who produced pornography joined a Benedictine monastery for forty days. There the five followed the monastery rules including a strict schedule for instruction, study, prayer, reflection and work. They were also obliged to follow the monks’ rules of silence, obedience, and humility. There was resistance at first. Two were reprimanded for leaving the monastery “looking for virgins and cigarettes.” Still, each one experienced change in his life.

By the end, the atheist, Tony Burke, 29, became a believer and gave up his job producing trailers for a sex chat line after having what he described as a "religious experience".

Gary McCormick, 36, the former Ulster Defence Association member, who spent much of his early life in prison, began to overcome his inner demons.

Peter Gruffydd, a retired teacher, regained the faith he had rejected in his youth and Nick Buxton, 37, a Cambridge undergraduate, edged closer to becoming an Anglican priest.

The fifth "novice", 32-year-old Anthony Wright, who works for a London legal publishing company, started to come to terms with his childhood traumas.
…
At the end of one of these sessions, Mr Burke, his voicing breaking with emotion, confessed his feelings in a video-diary entry. "I didn't want this to happen," he said.

"But something touched me, something spoke to me very deeply. It was a religious experience.

"When I woke up this morning, I didn't believe in this but, as I speak to you now, I do. Whatever it is, I believe in it."

I’m not really surprised that all five experienced something during the experiment. To be emerged in prayer and scripture, including all 150 Psalms each week, for forty days is bound to make an impact. Perhaps, this is a reminder that we should be drawn closer to the community of faith, the Scriptures and prayer.

Actually, I am a bit jealous. To live for forty days focusing on Christ and my life in Him without distraction would be quite a luxury. We live continually with the worries of life, and we need to develop disciplines necessary for lives in motion. Prayer, Scripture, Eucharist, and fellowship become ever more essential because of life‘s inevitable distractions. Sometimes I wonder if all of humanity has a case of spiritual ADD. We need to be reminded over and over about the good news of God in Jesus Christ otherwise we quickly forget.

Correcting a News Release

I was reading the news releases of the PCUSA this morning, and I noticed one about the Disciples of Christ Church. Apparently they have elected a woman to be general minister and president for the first time. That's great, but then the article made the astounding claim...

"No mainline denomination larger than the Christian Church has ever had a woman in the top position. In the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church, for example, the highest position a woman has ever held is diocesan bishop."

I realize that the article was not written by the PC(USA) Office of Communication, but shouldn't someone be checking these reports?

As of 2003, the total membership of the PC(USA) is 2,405,311 which is larger than the cited example of the Episcopal Church. In 1972, Lois Stair was elected first woman moderator of the General Assembly, UPCUSA. In 1978, Sarah Moseley was elected first woman moderator of the General Assembly, PCUS.

In the 75th anniversary of ordaining women as ruling elders and the 50th anniversary of ordaining women as ministers of Word and Sacrament, the PC(USA) shouldn't allow such misconceptions to stand.

Update: Sidestepping the Resurrection

In a recent post, I criticized Cynthia Rigby’s recent article in the Presbyterian Outlook. Apparently, I’m not the only one who was puzzled by her reluctance to give straight answers on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. She has responded to criticism in the latest edition of the Outlook.

Specifically, I bear witness to our confessional claims that "Jesus Christ rose again from the dead" and that one day we, too – as members of the communion of saints – will be bodily resurrected. This is what I believe. More importantly: this is what we believe, as Christians. The article clearly does not bring these beliefs into question, but seeks to explore how they make a difference in our lives of discipleship.

Although I still affirm that Dr. Rigby’s choice of words muddled her intent, I am glad to stand corrected. Moreover, I stand by my original comment that her observations about the implications of the resurrection are "intelligent and cogent."

Bill Moyer's Inner Voice

I was directed to a transcript of Bill Moyers show on PBS, Wide Angle. Here Moyers speaks with author James Carroll about the Roman Catholic Church and the new pope. Much of the conversation was a rehash of the negative criticisms that I’ve mentioned before. However, part of the dialogue demanded comment.

BILL MOYERS: What do you think the new pope would make of the CNN/USA Today Gallup poll a few days ago in which three quarters of American Catholics say they're more likely to follow their own conscience on, quote, "difficult moral questions," rather than the teachings of Pope Benedict?

JAMES CARROLL: Well, Pope Benedict probably would say that poll suggests one of the things that's wrong with American Catholicism. But I would say the opposite. American Catholicism has been a source for the Catholic Church as a whole of the discovery of the primacy of conscience. Every human being owes ultimate allegiance to his or her conscience. We also owe responsibly. We owe to the broader community the process of testing our conscience against what the broader community says. But finally, there can be no doubt that we have to do as our inner voice tells us. Now that -- that's a tradition that's powerfully out of the Protestant, American culture.

BILL MOYERS: Yes. The priesthood of the believer is what I was taught growing up.

JAMES CARROLL: Yes, it's true.

BILL MOYERS: That each of us has our own conscience that we honor, no matter what authority says.

Whether Carroll is right about the contributions of American Catholics, I won’t venture a guess. However, both Carroll and Moyers have a bizarre understanding of the Protestant teaching, "the priesthood of all believers." This doctrine has nothing to do with following inner voices or rejecting authority to follow our own consciences.

Drawing on the imagery from 1 Peter 2:4-10, the protestant reformers taught that the Church itself acted as a priesthood "that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." Protestant reformers understood that the priesthood of all believers was rooted in the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. Our reconciliation to God is dependent wholly upon Him. Jesus Christ alone is the mediator between God and humanity. As a result, there is no caste system in the church. Salvation is not dependent on popes and priests. Martin Luther writes,

"That all Christians are truly of the Spiritual Estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As St. Paul says, we are all one body, though each member does its own work, to serve the others. This is because we have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel and faith, these alone make Spiritual and Christian people."

If spiritual authority does not rest in popes, where does it rest? Carroll and Moyers believe it lies with the individual conscience. I choose. I decide. In this, they recall a famous phrase from the Westminster Confession, "God alone is Lord of the conscience." However, again they miss the mark. Reformed Christians have understood that sin is pervasive. Even our best is tainted by sin’s stain. As a result, our conscience needs help. Here is the complete quote from the Westminster Confession:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship."

According to Westminster, Scripture provides the necessary check on our inner voices. Luther, himself under the rallying cry of solo scriptura, would certainly agree. Still, Luther even suggests that the Christian community itself has some claim to authority. While addressing the meaning of ordained ministry within the priesthood of believers, he writes,

"Because we are all priests of equal standing, no one must push himself forward and take it upon himself, without our consent and election, to do that for which we all have equal authority. For no one dare take upon himself what is common to all without the authority and consent of the community."

Submitting to Scripture and to the voice of the Church under Scripture may be a messy process, but it is certainly superior to what occurred under the judges in Israel: "Every man did was right in his own sight" (Judges 21:25).

Ironically, Bill Moyers elsewhere has complained that conservative Christians are too individualistic, yet he embraces a view of authority which sees nothing higher than the individual. Moyers should know better.

Maureen Dowd & the Pope

From the standpoint of a Protestant clergyman, there was much to be celebrated in Pope John Paul’s reign. As a result, I am generally hopeful for the new pontificate. Benedict XVI was a close confidant of John Paul II, and I expect many of the same policies. I am amazed, however, at the venom directed at this Pope.

In a recent article, Maureen Dowd compares Pope Benedict XVI with Vice President Dick Cheney awarding both with prominent positions in the pantheon of villainy.

The two, from rural, conservative parts of their countries, want to turn back the clock and exorcise New Age silliness. Mr. Cheney wants to dismantle the New Deal and go back to 1937. Pope Benedict XVI wants to dismantle Vatican II and go back to 1397. As a scholar, his specialty was "patristics," the study of the key thinkers in the first eight centuries of the church.

Granted, both Pope Benedict and John Paul have been critical of excesses done in the name of Vatican II. Still, both were at Vatican II, and both have publicly embraced the council. In fact, Pope Benedict, in his former role, excommunicated an outspoken critic unwilling to heed the reforms of Vatican II. Moreover, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which Benedict headed is a far cry from the Inquisition. In fact, to suggest otherwise is to dishonor the memory of those who faced the Inquisition.

Finally, I almost groaned at Dowd’s mention of "patristics." Actually, I wished more church leaders had knowledge of the first eight centuries of church. The protestant reformers certainly knew the Church Fathers as well as they knew the Scriptures. Athanasius or Augustine can certainly teach us more about the church than the New York Times.

Hardball, Roman Catholics & Birth Control

Joseph Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. I pray that the God be with him and guide his pontificate. I have watched the pomp and circumstance surrounding the conclave with curiosity. I have watched the attendant media circus with dismay. Much of the commentary has been vapid. I know more about the Roman Catholic Church than many of the "expert" opinions that have been crowding the airways.

One of my favorite examples occurred on Hardball on MSNBC.

Chris Matthews pleads with Fr. Andrew Greeley, "Why is it wrong to have birth control? I don‘t quite understand that. Explain that to me, Father."

Greeley responds, "I would have a hard time defending it, Chris."

Now, if Chris Matthews was really concerned about the rationale behind the Roman Catholic teaching on birth control, why didn’t he book someone other than Andrew Greeley. There are plenty of folks who know what they are talking about. Instead the issue is dropped as if there is no reason.

Don’t get me wrong. I disagree with the Roman Catholic church on key doctrinal issues, but at least I respect it. The Roman Catholic Church has taken the past two millenniums of Church history seriously. Thinkers as diverse as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, and John Paul the Great are all celebrated within the church. Moreover, Protestants could learn much from Catholic social teachings on war and peace, poverty, labor, and life.

A Moral Voice?

Rev. Albert Keller in the Presbyterian Outlook has written a piece about the issues surrounding the death of Terri Shaivo. He urges the church to offer a "moral voice" on death. However, one sentence shouted out at me (emphasis added).

Stewardship: not to use a disproportionate share of common resources to hang on when it is time to lay life down; not to complicate the grief of loved ones with unfinished business; not to leave important medical and legal decisions un-addressed.

I do not hear a "moral voice." In fact, the voice I hear horrifies me. When is it time to "lay life down?" The answer to that question is key. Should patients with Alzheimer disease "lay life down?" Should the mentally handicapped? Should people with Parkinson disease? Sadly the argument about limited resources has been used to justify the extermination of the undesirable. Granted, I have taken these words out of context, and I hope that this is outside of the author’s intent.

Terri Shaivo, according to some, has been dead for fifteen years. They suggest that pulling the feeding tube was the right moral action because the woman was dead already. If Terri Shaivo was truly dead, I would agree. In that case, the cause of death would not be starvation or dehydration. However, the author of the article has not taken this position. In fact, he compares euthanasia with Jesus dying on the cross or Martin Luther King Jr heading to Memphis. Rev. Keller understands each of these as active decisions–"laying done one’s life."

The Church has traditionally made a distinction between suicide and martyrdom. The distinction is not always easily discerned, but it still remains. For example, we generally do not consider the fireman who rushes into a burning building to save others as suicidal. Death in these circumstances is not the objective. Rev. Keller does not even appear to be aware of such distinctions.

Perhaps, Rev. Keller is warning that life itself can become an idol. Perhaps, he’s right. However, I find that "quality of life" is an easier idol. We work, spend, and sacrifice for the sake of a particular quality of life. When that quality becomes elusive, many are willing to sacrifice life itself.

Newsletter: Treasure in Clay Jars

I have read that in the final moments of the life of Pope John Paul II, he motioned for the window where he often blessed the crowds. In his weakened and frail condition, he reached outward to complete the blessing, and spoke his final word, "Amen." In the last few years, the world watched as this pastor, theologian, and political leader struggled with his mortality.

The recent news coverage reminded me of another man, Rev. James Baldwin. James was a Presbyterian minister whom I knew in Ohio. In younger days, James served as driver for a chaplain during World War II. He watched as the chaplain would perform countless funerals for innumerable boys who gave the ultimate sacrifice. After James came home, he himself entered seminary and the ministry. James was a kind, compassionate man. He was a man of deep faith and conviction. When he spoke the Word of God, he spoke with authority, not merely because of his booming baritone voice, but because he submitted himself to that Word.

Before coming to Texas, I served as a student minister for two congregations. Without ordination, I could not serve communion to the people. We would often contact retired ministers to help us with the Lord’s Supper. That is how I met James Baldwin. He was in his last years of life. He was frail, weakened by age and illness. Sometimes he became confused. Still, looking into his eyes, one could easily see Rev. Baldwin as the great man he was.

When he administered Holy Communion, I would stand next to him to steady his step. As James raised the bread above his head and broke it, he would tell us about the broken body of Jesus Christ. In a sense, the pastor was broken as well–broken by his own mortality. Where others might be embarrassed by the sight of this weak elderly man, I was greatly moved. Despite his infirmities, God used James Baldwin.

The Scriptures teach us that we are merely clay jars (2 Cor 4:7). We are common and fragile, yet God uses us to hold his treasures. We necessarily approach life with humility, recognizing that our greatness is really God’s glory. Moreover, we learn that no one is worthless. Even the weakest, the dying, and the afflicted among us is worthy as God’s instrument. We shouldn’t be surprised. After all, our God ordained that the path of victory would be through a cross.

Terri Shiavo and Human Dignity

The Terri Shiavo case has been dominating the news for the past several days. I have been frustrated by those who have suggested that her life should be dependent on the potentiality of recovery. The fact is Terri will not recover, barring some miracle. (For the record, I do believe in miracles.) She may improve slightly with increased therapy and better care, but she will remain severely incapacitated. Doctors suggest that less than 20% of her brain is functioning. Still, her situation is not terminal. She is not brain dead, and she responds to outside stimuli. Accepting that there is no potentiality of recovery, does she deserve to die?

One of the better articles that I have read has been by Eric Cohen, a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In How Liberalism Failed Terri Shiavo, Cohen offers a fair reporting of the facts of the case, and then explores the ethical issues involved. He suggests that we have framed the ethical dilemma inappropriately. Instead of focusing on Terri’s wishes, as interpreted by her husband and family, we should ask what obligation does humanity have for those severely handicapped.

But the real lesson of the Schiavo case is not that we all need living wills; it is that our dignity does not reside in our will alone, and that it is foolish to believe that the competent person I am now can establish, in advance, how I should be cared for if I become incapacitated and incompetent. The real lesson is that we are not mere creatures of the will: We still possess dignity and rights even when our capacity to make free choices is gone; and we do not possess the right to demand that others treat us as less worthy of care than we really are.

I find it fascinating that Christianity grew so rapidly in its beginning partly because Christians valued life. They would not kill babies by exposure. They would care for orphans, the sick, and the elderly. When a plague would hit a town, the Christians would stay behind and care for the dying. New converts were attracted by their compassion.

Our faith teaches us that people are not statistics, puppets, or nuisances. Each person has dignity. With that in mind, I was amazed to read about one of the protestors for Terri Shiavo in Florida. Eleanor Smith is an activist, a self-professed lesbian and liberal, confined to a wheelchair because of polio. A few days ago she stated, "At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member."

Recommeded Reading

Another article from a former professor. This one is a devotional by Rev. Dr. Craig Barnes, pastor of Shadyside Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh, entitled the Judas Chromosome written for the Christian Century. I heartily recommend his writings and sermons. I also freely admit his influence on my understanding of ministry and the gospel.

Here’s an excerpt…

Could it be that the real reason we show betrayers so little compassion is that we’re afraid there is some Judas chromosome within all of us? We hate the thought that we too are capable of betraying trust. When Jesus claimed that one of the Twelve would betray him, the anxiety within all of their souls rushed to the surface. “Surely not I, Lord?” They might as well have said, “I’ve been worried about that, but I thought I had it under control.”

Recommeded Reading

I found a great article in the Presbyterian Outlook by a former professor, Dr. Richard Ray. He gives a moving introduction to The Rule of Benedict. I certainly recommend it, and also appreciate his comments on our church’s unity.

Scripture provides communal adhesion. To wear nametags at a new member reception is not enough. We only become reconciled across our differences into authentic Christian community as we absorb Scripture into our souls. Perhaps our heartfelt hunger for Scripture, an aching illiteracy of the heart, leaves us demanding more than we should of one another.

We should never underestimate the cost of true community. Nor should we overestimate its general appeal. It is a hard won act of supernatural grace. It is hard won at the Cross, hard won through the Spirit’s intellectual claims, and hard won even through fear of the Lord’s commands. Benedict, in his quiet way, said that as we enter into such processes, Christ becomes personally present and miracles occur. He understood that personal sanctity is one of the fibers out of which the whole tapestry of the church is woven. The Reformed theologians knew that and urged it.

Thanks for the reminder, Dr. Ray.

Sidestepping the Resurrection?

In The Significance of the Resurrection, Cynthia Rigby warns her students to avoid "litmus test" theology.

"If you find yourself getting backed into a corner on a doctrinal issue, with someone pressing you merely to ‘check "yes"’ or ‘check "no,"’do your best to redirect the conversation."

I find Dr. Rigby’s advice more than a little disingenuous. If the issue was about God’s goodness or the loving quality of God, I don’t seriously believe she would advise students "to redirect the conversation."

"Is God loving? I want a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer."
"uh...hmm...How ‘bout them Red Sox?"

However, Rigby is not dealing with those questions. Instead, she encourages her students to avoid questions concerning the nature of Christ’s resurrection.

When discussing the doctrine of the resurrection, we tend to fall into the trap of "litmus testing" one another. "Do you believe that Jesus Christ bodily arose?" "Do you believe in the resurrection, I mean, literally?"

Dr. Rigby suggests that no matter what we truly believe about the resurrection, we should avoid answering the question. Despite protests to the contrary, Dr. Rigby is not speaking to someone who believes the traditional teachings of the church. Those who believe that Christ arose bodily, literally, and historically have little trouble with questions about the resurrection. Dr. Rigby’s inclusivity is merely a rhetorical device to make those who must answer "no" or at best "maybe" feel better about their answer.

I understand the desire to make Christianity more attractive to the "cultured despisers." Still, what is so wrong with holding the orthodox position that the tomb was empty? To be fair, Dr. Rigby is right that we should look beyond the confession that "He is risen" for the significance of the resurrection. In fact, I would argue that all Christian theology ultimately answers, "So what?" to the reality of the resurrection.

In the article, Dr. Rigby suggests three important conclusions drawn from the resurrection. Her observations are intelligent and cogent. However, as helpful as her observations are, they are meaningless, if the resurrection isn’t reality. She seems to suggest that we can ignore this messy resurrection by focusing on the significance of it. She reminds me of cranky conservatives who boil the Scriptures down to "biblical principles" and then are no longer able to be surprised by the actual text.

Something happened that first Easter morning. The meaning of that morning is derived from the actual events of that morning. The question is essential. It should not be sidestepped.

Condemned to hell

Some may be surprised to discover that I agree with Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners, when he proclaims that budgets are “moral documents.” Moreover, I welcome a moral audit of the budget recently presented to Congress by President Bush. A vigorous debate concerning the spending priorities of the federal government would be helpful. What should be the moral priorities of government? What is the proper relationship between government and civil society? Answering these questions would provide a valuable civic education. However, I am amused by some of the moral and religious language used to bludgeon the President.

A few days ago, a group of mainline protestants released a statement recalling the Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man. When the poor Lazarus died, he joined Abraham in comfort. When the rich man died, he received fiery torment in hell. These mainline leaders compare proponents of the Bush budget to the rich man.

Like many Americans, we read our daily newspaper through the lens of faith, and when we see injustice, it is our duty to say so. The 2006 Federal Budget that President Bush has sent to Capitol Hill is unjust. It has much for the rich man and little for Lazarus.

Although the mainline leaders don’t say so directly, by analogy, they condemn to hell those who support the President’s budget.

In principle, I don’t object to speaking about divine condemnation and specific evils. The Old Testament prophets certainly had no difficulty with that rhetoric. Nonetheless, in practice, I am more than a little reticent to condemn particular folks to hell. Where I’m wimpy, these mainline church leaders are willing to call down God’s wrath on supply-siders. Still, there remains a nagging irony. What if someone used the same rhetoric of eternal punishment about those who violate marriage vows, advocate heretical teachings, or celebrate particular moral failings? These same religious leaders would be the first to cast the charge of judgmentalism or self-righteousness. They would preach eloquently on logs and specks. Somehow they want it both ways. Sadly, the cause of the poor is too important, morally and biblically, to cheapen by overblown rhetoric.

Newsletter: WIJD

On my bookshelf I have a dusty old volume of Charles Sheldon’s novel, "In His Steps." The book was written in 1896 by Sheldon for his youth group in Topeka, Kansas. The novel tells the story of a pastor who challenges his congregation to live for one year asking the question, "What would Jesus do?" The rest of the book outlines the transformed lives of the parishioners as they tackle the problems of poverty, economic exploitation, graft, and the like. The story epitomized the social gospel movement and its optimism in human efforts solving human problems.

The book is not great literature, but amazingly it continues to make an impact. Just a few years ago, the book spawned a line of merchandising. One found WWJD everywhere, emblazoned on bracelets, T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. The question became a credo for an entire subculture of Christians. But the fad faded. No one any more seems interested in asking, "What would Jesus do?" Part of me is relieved.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m entirely in favor of promoting ethics based on the teachings of Jesus. The world would be a better place if more people patterned their lives after our Savior. However, the question itself is troublesome. "What would Jesus do?" is conditional. "Would" implies an "if" clause. "If Jesus was here, what would he do?" As Christians who live in the sunlight of Easter, we no longer can speak conditionally.

"Christ is risen. He is risen, indeed."

The resurrection refuses to allow Jesus to slip into the sands of time. Instead, we believe in his reality and his continued actions on our behalf. His teachings remain valid because his kingdom remains an actuality. Perhaps, with all respect to Rev. Sheldon, this Easter we should take on a new challenge. Because Jesus is alive, let us ask, "What is Jesus doing right now?" Let’s live the next year asking, "What is Jesus doing in our congregation, in our families, in our lives?"

Hat tip: The first time I encountered the question, "What is Jesus doing?" was in a sermon by Leonard Sweet.

Newsletter: Yes, Virginia, There is a St. Nicholas

Last December, Thomas and I caught the end of a Christmas animation special on television. When I think of animation and Christmas, I usually think of islands of misfit toys and boys with blankets quoting the gospel of Luke. However, this cartoon was different. Santa Claus rode a rocket sleigh propelled at dizzying speed by eight robot reindeer. Although there was no discernable plot, there were plenty of explosions and battle scenes. It’s as if the Power Rangers were given the opportunity to rewrite "A Visit from St. Nick." What a long strange trip it has been.

Long before being a pop culture icon, before being a huckster for rampant commercialism, before being "a jolly old elf," Santa Claus was simply Nicholas. The boy grew up in the third century in Patara, a small village in what is now modern Turkey. Born and baptized into the Church, his parents raised him to be a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. While still young, his parents died during an epidemic, and left him a small fortune. Moved by his faith, Nicholas used his entire inheritance in a ministry of compassion. In the name of Jesus Christ, he helped the needy, the sick, and the suffering. While still young, he became a leader in the church and was made Bishop of Myra. He was a leader of steady convictions which drew him into conflict with Roman authorities. Under the Roman Emperor Diocletian, Nicholas was exiled and imprisoned for his faith. In better times, Nicholas attended the Council at Nicaea in 325. There he and the other bishops hammered out a statement of faith accepted universally by the Church that Jesus Christ is fully human, fully divine.

Over the years, Nicholas’ story has become encrusted with fantasy, hype and cultural baggage. Much of it is harmless fun, like stories of giants and beanstalks. In the process, however, we lost a great man of compassion, faith and conviction. Nicholas belongs to the Church, he belongs to us, and his example is a witness to Jesus Christ. Tell Nicholas’ story. Share it with your children and grandchildren. Receive this Christmas season a visit from old St. Nick.

Grace & Peace,
James

Newsletter: Interesting Times

I am told that there is a curse used by the Chinese, "May you live in interesting times." No one can doubt that we are living in interesting times. In my adult lifetime, the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union crumbled, terrorists attacked, and now we face another close presidential election. All this has happened in just the last two decades. If you’re older, your list of "interesting" events could fill this newsletter. It’s easy to be overwhelmed. It’s easy to be frustrated by events. Sometimes it appears as if we play only a walk-on part in the drama of history.

In college, a philosophy professor of mine spoke of our desperation this way: "Think of a dog tied to a cart. The cart is rolling down a hill. The dog can choose to trot alongside the cart or be dragged by it. That’s free will." Instead of being Masters of the Universe, modern philosophy posits an anxiety-ridden life where the Triumph of the Will is to be crushed by history.

However, as Christians, we live an alternative. God calls us to enter history. To stand and witness to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We proclaim a God who binds up the brokenhearted that provides release for the captives. Although history may try to crush the Church, she cannot be overcome. After all, she believes in resurrection. In the Great Commission, Jesus tells his disciples that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18). As a result, we do not live in constant anxiety. We do not need to be consumed by the "interesting times" around us. God remains God.

In this last election, some are pleased by the outcome. Others are disappointed. Nevertheless, one thing is clear. "Interesting times" are here to stay. As Christians, we can stand without fear. We remain united in the Christ who is victorious.

Grace & Peace,
James

Newsletter: Stewardship Without Fear

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

God’s first words to humanity are about stewardship. While the creation was still good, before it was tainted by human sinfulness, God commissions humanity to be stewards of his creation.
God’s command associates stewardship with words like “multiply,” “subdue,” and “dominion.” These words suggest that God has granted us incredible power over his creation. Some are understandably fearful of such power. They see the corruption of that power, and the desolation and destruction that follows. Their timidity, however comprehensible, leads to inaction. Stewardship becomes small-minded.

Too often, we limit our discussion of stewardship to budgets and financial receipts. We see stewardship as a struggle to preserve the status quo. However, our calling is not merely to maintain the church and her ministries, preserving them as they were decades ago. Our work is more than dusting and cleaning spills. We are called to stand with God against the chaos. We become co-creators with God.

As individuals and as a congregation, we should evaluate our calling to be God’s stewards. Is it marked by timidity? Is it an effort merely to maintain the status quo? Instead, our stewardship should always be measured by faithfulness and fruitfulness. Let us use God’s blessings to be a blessing and a witness to the world.

Grace & Peace,
James

Newsletter: A Passion for Evangelism

Do you remember the controversy du jour from just a few months ago? Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, dominated movie theaters, talk radio, and late night cable talk shows. In spite of the controversy or maybe because of it, the movie became the eighth-highest-grossing domestic film of all time. According to the Barna Research Group, almost one-third of adults in the United States actually saw the movie, and film viewers generally praise the movie.
However, the movie did not become the great evangelistic tool which many hoped it would become. Marketing surrounding the movie suggested as much, and Christians across the country invited un-churched friends to see it. The Barna Group, a polling organization which follows cultural trends and Christianity, suggests that the movie only made a modest impact. The study concludes, “less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film stated that they made a profession of faith or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior in reaction to the film’s content.”

Mel Gibson’s film will probably set the standard for biblical epics for years to come. It certainly raises questions about one’s faith. It may even shape how this generation of Christians will view the suffering of Jesus. However, the movie will not accomplish the hard work of evangelism on its own. Jesus Christ has chosen his people to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8). Rather than a movie or a tract, we are the clay jars which carry the treasure of the good news of Christ (2 Cor 4:7). We are the ones with a cup of cool water to quench our neighbors’ thirst. We are the ones who visibly and tangibly show God’s love to a hurting world. We are the instruments of the Holy Spirit trumpeting God’s praises.

I could have guessed the statistics discovered by the Barna study. Movies can entertain, enlighten, and provoke. Unfortunately, they can’t touch. Evangelism is hard work that requires the human touch.

Grace & Peace,
James

Move On

Recently, someone handed me an article which appeared in the Abilene Paper entitled “Jesus Kept Moving On; We Need to do the Same” by an Episcopal priest, Tom Ehrich.

Excerpts:

Nothing stands still.

Moving on is one of life’s great survival skills. Fall out of love? Move on. Lose a treasure? Move on. Fail at something? Move on. Want more from life? Move on…

Religion has the hardest time moving on. Our current battles over homosexuality are just the latest outbreak of self-imprisonment in fear of change…

We cannot find a shrine where time stands still and ultimate truth is always manifest and always the same…

Where will Jesus be found? In the present, not the past. Moving on to someplace new, a new land, a new day in a familiar land, alongside a self straining to be new. Moving on to someplace else--not the tried and true, but onward, toward a promise,
dreaming of wholeness in the midst of brokenness and life in the midst of death.

If you would seek Jesus, hear the angel at the tomb: “He is not here.” He has moved on. So must we.

Instead of moving on, our Savior lingered. Now that he has ascended, we can cling to him. We are the New Jerusalem where there is no Temple. Instead, God dwells with his people. Instead of moving on, we need to linger, to dwell. We need to dwell with the Scriptures and the traditions of the church to hear the whole counsel of the whole Church. Instead of moving on from the controversial issues of the day, we need to dwell with those who are broken by those issues.

“Moving on” is just a cheap rhetorical device. Concern about the poor? Nah, Let’s move on. Concern about concentrated power in the hands of the few? Let’s move on. Jesus moved on. Let us do the same.

The church has two problems. Sometimes, we major in the minors. We have arguments about silly stuff. We make idols out of programs, style, and buildings. At other times, we make idols out of the current fad or even change itself. In either case, idolatry remains idolatry. “Reformed and always reformed” has been our battle cry, but we quickly forget that we are reformed “according to the Word of God.”

Newsletter: Is the Honeymoon Over?

“The honeymoon is over.” A few weeks ago, a colleague in ministry gave me this advice. He noted that beginning in August, I’ve been here at First Presbyterian for one year. He wanted me to know that things will soon be changing. He told me ominously, “They are not going to let you get away with as much as you did before.” I responded, “That may be true, but it also means that I won’t let them get away with as much as they did before.”

I have often heard others use the honeymoon analogy when speaking of pastors and their congregations. Many have noted that the excitement of the wedding day soon gives way to the monotony of married life. Likewise, the novelty of a new pastor and a new congregation wears off. Relationships from time to time grow stale. Conflicts once considered insignificant begin to divide and conquer.

Although many have observed these things, both in marriages and in congregations, I wonder why we should expect them as inevitable. True, sin is pervasive, but our God is stronger than entropy. Healthy relationships in marriages and in congregations grow, develop, and mature.
In the past year, my role has been something of a cheerleader. The world needs to know what a wonderful congregation we have. We are hungry for God, and we desire to show his love to the world. We don’t say this for our benefit, but we say it to give witness to the glory of God. We also don’t say this arrogantly. We realize that we still have much to accomplish. In the coming years, our hope is that our worship will become more vibrant, our knowledge of God will grow, our love for God and each other will become more apparent, and our witness to God’s good news will become more bold.

How do we stay out of a rut? The Scriptures use the analogy of marriage, not to explain the relationship of pastor and congregation, rather to understand Christ’s relationship to the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ (2 Cor 11:2, Rev 21:2, etc). Our relationship with the living Savior leads to enlivening relationships with each other. As Jesus himself said, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). God is not fished with us yet. The honeymoon is far from over.

Grace & Peace,
James

Raising Children in the Faith

Recently I overheard a conversation that bothered me. Perhaps, the remarks were uttered without thought, but it still bothered me. The person began, “I had loving parents. They did not force me to go to church or anything.” Is this attitude particularly loving? Granted, we are unable to force anyone to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, but we certainly can take an active interest in the development of faith. As parents, Sara and I force Thomas to do a lot of things he doesn’t want to do. We make him take baths, do his homework, be respectful to others. We hope that these things will make him a better human being. Why should we treat his faith any differently? I am reminded of the vows that parents take at baptism in the Hungarian Reformed Church.

The Minister:
Before I would administer the Holy Baptism, I address two questions to you, to which you shall reply in audible words:

i) Do you wish that by means of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism this infant be enrolled into the Covenant of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and also be admitted into the holy Christian Church?

Parents and godparents shall say: We do.

(ii) Do you pledge and vow, that from now on you shall raise up this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord and also have him (her) educated, so that in due course of time, in the presence of the congregation he (she) voluntarily will make a profession of faith in the one eternal God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Parents and godparents shall say: We do.

Those vows suggest the incredible responsibility of the parents for the salvation of their children. Perhaps, forcing someone to go to church isn’t the best way to raise them in the knowledge and fear of the Lord. But indifference should never be called loving.

Sara suggests that I am overreacting. She is probably right. But I think that we are living in a culture that treats the development of faith with indifference. For some reason we call this lack of guidance as loving. In fact, our indifference has become cliché. It is ironic that parents who hope and desire for every good benefit on their children fail to raise them in the faith.