Conan Meets Jesus

In the past year, I have gained a greater appreciation of the pulp writer, Robert E. Howard. It’s clear that this appreciation is based solely on my friendship with a Howard aficionado who has written a biography of the author. In fact, this whole post is based on some correspondence with him. To the uninformed, Robert Howard was an author of fantasy, horror, western and detective literature in the 1920s and 1930s. He is also the creator of Conan the Barbarian.

I must admit that I haven’t read anything by Howard. (That will soon change when Amazon delivers a collection of short stories.) Still, every time that I see his name, I read a bit further. A few months ago, John J. Miller had an interview with Rusty Burk who has edited some Howard anthologies. I certainly have no way of judging whether he portrays Howard or his books accurately. Still, I was intrigued.

Howard also saw that violence was the inevitable result of breakdowns in “civilized” societies. In his view, humans are really just apes who learned how to build things: when our societies begin to break down, we revert to our innate savagery. I’ve just been re-reading Leo Grin’s essay “The Reign of Blood” and I think he’s right that Howard sees man’s primal emotion as hate, and so when confronted with forces we see as hostile we see them as “something not only to be battled but to be hated.” I think anyone who has looked at what happens on the frontiers between societies in conflict would have to agree that Howard’s views were pretty dead-on. Even when the initial contacts are not hostile, man’s tendency to turn hatred on perceived threats frequently serves to escalate into conflict and ultimately violence. At the end of the Turlogh O’Brien story “The Dark Man,” a priest asks “Almighty God, when will the reign of blood cease?” “Turlogh shook his head. ‘Not so long as the race lasts.’” It seems a bleak and pessimistic view, but on the basis of our history to date, it also seems a realistic one.

Now this is where it gets weird. As a pastor, lots of folks tell me that they find concept of “blood atonement” horrific and barbaric--Jesus pouring out his blood on the cross for my sins. Frankly it offends my modern sensibilities as well. However, this insight into human nature, whether Howard’s or not, might provide some guidance.

Human beings at their core are savages. Humanity’s primal emotion is hatred. The kingdom of this world is built on death and the spilling of blood. Ultimately, this kingdom is fleeting. We are just waiting to be overthrown by another set of barbarians. Jesus Christ, representing the kingdom of God, enters the world challenges it, and threatens it. Rather than hatred, Jesus teaches that love of God and love of neighbor is a better foundation. The kingdom of man, threatened, attempts to destroy Christ, to kill him, and to spill his blood. This is only natural since the world has only one playbook. Ironically, God uses the spilling of blood to defeat hate. The innocence of Christ reveals the ultimate failure of hatred. Christ pours out his own blood in love to destroy a world based on blood spilled in hatred. Jesus plays by the world’s rules and wins. By winning he changes the game forever. The resurrection shows the ultimate triumph of God’s Kingdom over this human world.

Clearly this is not well thought-out. I still wonder if Howard’s world-view (if it is accurately depicted) might help us understand the fallen world absent Jesus Christ.

Fully Human

In seminary, a professor and some students were chatting about the miracles of Jesus. Someone was babbling on about a Buddhist monk who could do incredible feats of human endurance. The professor wondered out loud if some of Jesus’ miracles could be attributed to his human nature, rather than his divine one. Although I had grown up watching “In Search Of” hosted by Leonard Nimoy, skepticism had long ago dismissed ESP and bigfoot. At the time, the conversation held no particular interest for me.

Nonetheless, there was something intriguing in the professor’s response. We Christians affirm that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Often, in our discussions, the humanity of Christ gets short attention. Jesus is treated like a cosmic Clark Kent whose suffering is feigned or faked. I remember someone once being offended by a question posed to Jesus in the lyrics of a Rich Mullins song, “Did You try not to cry when You scraped your knee?” The claim was that Jesus wouldn’t have fallen and hurt himself in the first place.

Even when we speak about the humanity of Christ, the attention is limited to a discussion of weakness, suffering and temptation. This tendency is understandable. However, if Christ is fully human that means not only does he have our weakness but also he has our strength. Jesus was the best that humanity could offer. And humanity in a move that can only be understood as masochistic or suicidal nailed Jesus to a cross. Alexander Schmemann writes, “But while [the world] can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be. Christianity does not condemn the world. The world has condemned itself when on Calvary it condemned the One who was its true self.”

The best as well as the worst of humanity is need of redemption.

Party Politics and Theology

According to a recent article, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, recently told a gathering of Jewish leaders, "This country is not a theocracy."

Although some may disagree, I believe that Dean is stating a non-controversial truth. I wouldn't begin to criticize that statement. However, he continued on...

"There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; that we are not a one-religion nation; and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field."

I realize that Howard Dean is not a theologian, but I find the statement curious. In one breath, he proclaims that we are not a theocracy, and then in the next he states that the Democratic Party has a view on who can get into heaven. Religious doctrine and party politics rarely mix well.

Many people believe many different things about God in the United States. We are "not a one-religion nation" in Howard Dean's words. The United States government does not endorse one particular Christian denomination or even one particular religion.

At the American founding, there was a belief that fervent religious faith could be supported and even encouraged when the state took no official position on matters of religious dogma. Government, the argument went, was limited. Religious doctrine was outside of its purview. Over the years, detractors have suggested that no official religion meant an official endorsement of agnosticism or perhaps universalism. Is religious liberty antithetical to a faithful life? I would argue no, but Howard Dean sure likes giving ammunition to the opposition.

I do not begrudge Howard Dean his own personal faith. In fact, I would hope that it influences the political positions he takes. Moreover, I am not even bothered by politicians lecturing me about faith. They have that right. Still, I would argue that the two-party system is not the best place to pick up your theology.

Newsletter: Salt on the Street

Michael Palin, the Monty Python alum, has been traveling the world lately. Since 1998, he has been making documentaries of his wanderings. The travelogues are very human, highlighting the many characters that Michael meets on his trips. Recently, someone told me about a time when the host was in Japan.

Mr. Watanabe is the proprietor of a restaurant in Tokyo. Every morning, the man places three piles of salt in the street in front of his restaurant. Apparently, the practice dates back over a hundred years. When farmers would bring their cows to town, the cows would stop to lick the salt. The farmer, having extra time on his hands, would notice the restaurant. Thus, sales were increased. One hundred years ago, it was a clever marketing tool.

Today, in hyper-urban Tokyo, it is merely habit or a tradition. Call me crazy, but I think such traditions are a good thing. Traditions help us maintain connections to people and places long gone. They suggest that life is more than our moment in time. Most Americans don’t think much about tradition. We are wired to focus on the “new and improved.” Still, for one time a year, our minds turn to habits and patterns long established. During Christmas and Thanksgiving, we don’t mind sharing our lives with the past.

One tradition prevalent at this time of the year is attending worship. We hear ancient stories and sing old songs. For once, we are proud that our worship services look the same as the ones we attended when we were children. I would never trade the tradition of the holidays, but I wonder if we are missing something. Is it possible that we have fallen in love with the things of God, rather than God himself? In the poetry of Luke’s gospel, in the familiarity of Silent Night, and in the pageantry of the candlelight service, we sometimes forget the real purpose. God entered history, and nothing, not even death, could stop him. Our worship does not venerate the dead who remain safely dead. In fact, we worship a living God who claims our very lives. Discipleship is more than putting salt on the streets.

Newsletter: God's Vision

“Where there is no vision, the people perish…” (Proverbs 29:18, KJV)

Over the years, I have listened to politicians, business leaders, and church people talk about the “vision-thing.” I hear the gurus speak about concepts like “vision casting” and “vision alignment.” I must admit that the jargon and babble often wears me down. After a while, I find myself adrift in my own thoughts.

That’s a shame since the “vision-folk” are essentially correct. People are people. We want to know who we are. We want to belong. We want to know what we can contribute. We want to know what is possible. Communities that can articulate a shared vision often reach their goals simply because they know what those goals are.

Vision is important, yet something remains. What should that shared vision be? The difference between a demagogue and a statesman often rests on that very question. Sadly, Christian leaders will quote the partial verse above to justify whatever direction they wish to go. I have even caught myself doing this. Nonetheless, having a vision is not enough. We must have the right one.

Proverbs 29:18 is not about programs and possibilities. Instead it is about following God. The entire verse states, “Where there is no vision, the people perish but he that keepeth the law, happy is he” (KJV). The context suggests that those who do not keep the law will pay consequences. In fact, many translations use “prophecy” or “revelation” instead of “vision.” In other words, we are to follow God’s vision, not our own.

The work of ministry is important. We make decisions that we hope will further God’s kingdom. We organize and plan. Still, all our efforts must remain within the context of God’s greater vision for us. We are part of the new covenant in Jesus Christ. We are God’s children. We are to love both God and neighbor. Through the grace found in Christ we can be transformed. It is a glorious vision. Everything else is a poor substitute.

Nominees For Next Year

Despite all the complaining, Al Gore is having a pretty good decade. He won the popular vote in the presidential election of 2000. More recently, he has won an Oscar, an Emmy, and now the Nobel Prize.

I do not wish to rain on Mr. Gore's parade, but I was moved by an editorial today on the OpinionJournal website. It makes suggestions for next year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Please read the article. These are truly profiles in courage.

With Liberty and Justice For All

I know someone who became an American citizen today. She took the oath in Oklahoma City amid a room full of folks from over 30 different countries. It was emotional, and she is ecstatic.

I also read today that the Irish rocker, Bono, received the Liberty Medal for his humanitarian work in Africa. His comments seemed poignant in light of this new friend's citizenship.

Calling America "my country," Bono said he's a fan of the United States despite its problems because of the country's contributions to the world.

"Your America is where Neil Armstrong takes a walk on the moon," Bono said. "Your America gave Europe the Marshall Plan. Your America gave the world the Peace Corps."

"America is not just a country, it's an idea, isn't it? It's a great and powerful idea," he said. "The idea that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Bono exhorted Americans to pledge to continue to help the world.

"America has so many great answers to offer," he said. "We can't fix all the world's problems, but the ones we can we must.

America is not a nation based on blood or soil. We are a nation based on an idea that justice is possible only when men and women are free.

Congratulations and God bless, Maha.

Stumbling Past and Present

I’ve read a report on the Southern Baptist Convention. Apparently, baptisms are down. The downward trend seems to echo the dismal performance of mainline churches in new professions of faith. Sadly, some mainliners will welcome the news in what would be the very definition of shadenfreude. Instead, Christians of all flavors should not take satisfaction in the difficulties of our Southern Baptist brothers and sisters.

For about a generation now, the numerical success of Southern Baptist churches has been held up as a model to ailing mainline denominations. Many have imitated those Southern Baptist churches to varying degrees of success. Why are they now faltering? There are several possibilities--none are very satisfying. The Southern Baptist church is the new mainline. Like the mainline Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans before them, perhaps their success is causing them to stumble. As an organization grows bureaucracy develop. At the same time populations are shifting. An established organization will find it more difficult to change to meet new realities. Also, in very crude terms, the market becomes saturated. If every community already has a Baptist Church, then there is very little need to start new congregations. Finally, as a Christian group becomes more mainstream, there is always the temptation to accommodate to the greater culture. Meanwhile, the culture is becoming less and less welcoming to a Christian worldview.

I find it interesting that among Southern Baptists the only age level in which baptisms are increasing is pre-schoolers. One member of the North American Mission board stated, “…it’s hard to see the march toward infant baptisms as good news.” Laying aside my theological position as a Presbyterian that infant baptism is scripturally sound, the development suggests something about the Southern Baptists. The denomination is moving from perpetuating itself by conversion to perpetuating itself by procreation. Preschoolers don’t usually profess faith in Jesus Christ unless they are growing up in Christian homes. We mainliners have been dependent on procreation for a couple of generations. It hasn’t worked well.

I will not attempt to give advice to the Baptists. My own denomination keeps me busy enough. Nonetheless, there seems to be a simple solution to faltering denominations or congregations: a clear sense of our identity in Jesus Christ, an active witness in the community, and discipleship.

The solution is simple, but living it out is hard.

Hypocrisy

Senator Larry Craig from Idaho was arrested in June 2007 in a men’s restroom at the Minneapolis Airport. He plead guilty to disorderly conduct. Apparently, it was a place frequented by men seeking gay sex. Of course, the press is having a field day, and Craig isn’t helping matters by denying that a guilty plea suggests his guilt.

Interestingly, the big word of the day is “hypocrisy.” Several commentators are expressing their moral outrage that Craig is a conservative Republican who speaks strongly in favor of “family values.” That he would say one thing and do another has caused the pundits to be shocked and dismayed.

I am bothered by the tidal wave of “hypocrite” charges. Is Craig a hypocrite? The evidence suggests yes. Nonetheless, there are bigger problems here than hypocrisy. As one pundit noted, “Adultery, for starters, is worse then hypocrisy.”

Oscar Wilde, no paragon of a prim and proper puritan, once quipped, “that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” Back in those days, vice and virtue were considered objective. The hypocrite, despite his moral failing, at least knew the right thing to do. These days, our current culture teaches that morality is based entirely on personal preferences. The highest good is “to be true to self.” Where virtue is defined by the individual, hypocrisy becomes the only vice.

Paul’s confession of sin rings a little different in the modern ear:

“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” (Romans 7:14-15)

Paul is a self-acknowledged hypocrite. He doesn’t particularly need redemption. He needs merely to change his convictions to fit his morality. In our world, the libertine will never be a hypocrite.

“Hypocrisy”, at least in its current manifestation, has become a useless word.

Newsletter: Spiritual Self-Contradiction

“I am told God loves me--and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”

These are the words of Mother Teresa in a prayer to Jesus as reported recently by Time magazine. The excerpt comes from a larger collection of letters and papers entitled, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. The press coverage of the new book has suggested a scandal.

The talking heads on the cable news shows cluck that Mother Teresa was a hypocrite. Here is a woman who dedicated her life to God. Nonetheless, she often wandered in a spiritual desert. She had days, rather years, in which God seemed silent. The author of the Time article suggests that Teresa’s life presents “a startling portrait in self-contradiction.”

I only know Mother Teresa through her public persona. She was born in Macedonia and began her ministry in India at the age of 19. There she ministered to the poor and dying of Calcutta in the name of Christ. I cannot speak to her inner spiritual life. I am in no position to judge. However, is it possible to follow God and not feel God’s presence?

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?” (Psalm 22:1)

The psalmist believes that the answer is yes. In fact, Jesus himself speaks the psalmist’s words from the cross. Faithfulness does not mean happiness all the time. Discipleship can be accompanied by sorrow, silence, and suffering.

Human beings are emotional creatures. Our emotions can bring a passion and intensity to all of life. We should not neglect our feelings. Nonetheless, the love of God does not change when we cannot perceive it. We are saved by God’s grace in Jesus Christ, not our feelings. We must rely on the promises of the Scriptures and the collective faith of the church to sustain us when our own individual faith seems insufficient.

If you have never experienced the “self-contradiction” of spiritual dryness count yourself blessed. If you are like the rest of us, do not despair. Bring your fear, anger and doubt to God. Raise your concerns, and ask your questions. Wrestle with God, and even ask for a blessing. In the end, know that we belong to our faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, even if we cannot feel it.

Newsletter: Beyond the Answers

The answer is 42. You know, the answer to life, the universe, and everything. It’s 42. At least that is the claim of Douglas Adams in his science fiction farce, The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. The problem, according to the book, is not the answer. Instead, we don’t know the right question. Here, Adams pokes a little irreverent fun at the elusive nature of existential questions. Who are we? Why are we here? Knowing the answer and understanding its meaning are two separate things.

We stand with Christians throughout history proclaiming that Jesus is Lord. God has a claim on our life, and as a result, we live differently. The question remains, how shall we then live? Faithful living means asking that question. More importantly, it means having the courage to live with the answers. Guided by the Holy Spirit, we worship God, study the Bible, and pray. In humility, we then step out in faith.

In the past two years, our congregation has been in a season of discernment. After much worship, study and prayer, we acknowledge that God is calling us to equip the Church for the life of faith. Paul writes in the letter to the Ephesians…

It was [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)

We want for our congregation what God wants for us--that we become mature in the faith. We would like our church to be a vibrant, dynamic community, alive in Christ.

Knowing our calling and living it out are two separate things. On August 24-26, the First Presbyterian Church will be hosting a conference on “Equipping the Church: Responding to our Call.” I encourage you join us for a weekend of teaching, fellowship, music and reflection.

The Love of God Displayed

While in Houston last week, our family stopped for gas. Some graffiti evangelist had scrawled onto the gas pump, "HE IS very REAL! JESUS Heals the Broken Hearted."

I can think of no better witness to the love of God in Jesus Christ than to deface someone else's property.

Newsletter: Praise the Lord With Music

Praise ye the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary:
praise him in the firmament of his power.
Praise him for his mighty acts:
praise him according to his excellent greatness.
Praise him with the sound of the trumpet:
praise him with the psaltery and harp.
Praise him with the timbrel and dance:
praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
Praise him upon the loud cymbals:
praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.
Praise ye the LORD.
Psalm 150 (KJV)

During our recent vacation to Washington D.C., our family attended a worship service at National Cathedral. Although we arrived a little late and sat in the back of the sanctuary, we could not avoid the music of the pipe organ. We really didn’t listen to the organ. Thanks to the acoustics, we were surrounded, enveloped by the music. Our praises to God flowed with the sound of the pipes. It was a magnificent experience.

The organ has been playing church music for a long time. Around the late fourth century, St. Jerome describes an organ in Jerusalem that could be heard more than a mile away at the Mount of Olives. Still, not everyone in the Church has been a fan. As the Puritans stripped away ornamentation from worship, they dubbed the instrument, “the devil’s bagpipe.” Despite the criticism, the organ remained the preferred instrument for church music until the late twentieth century.

First Presbyterian Church has had its organ since our building was built in the late 1960s. For the time, it was one of the best electronic organs around. Over the years, we have been blessed with some wonderful organists whose music encouraged our own praise to God. Unfortunately, the electronic components of the organ have deteriorated over those same years. Soon, we will be forced to decide whether organ music will remain part of our music ministry.

Currently, the movement in church music is away from the organ. Many churches have replaced their pipes with keyboards and guitars. Over the next several years, more and more good church music will be available for these instruments. Our own congregation must learn how to better utilize guitar, keyboard and other instruments in worship. God deserves praise using the broadest musical palette.

Although organ music pushes against the trend, should it retain a prominent place in our worship? Certainly, the organ's voice is very different from other instruments. Without it, we do limit our options. Moreover, the historical repertoire of the organ has incredible depth and range. When we use these great pieces of music in worship, we touch the living faith of generations past. We acknowledge that the church is more than about us. The timeless and eternal often trump the “new and improved.”

The challenge we really face is not about the organ. It is about our music ministry. How do we develop the musical talents of our community to the glory of God? How do we encourage an appreciation of the musical heritage of the whole Church? How best do we minister with music in the name of Jesus Christ?

Darfur and Climate Change

According to the headlines, the current United Nations General Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon, has suggested that the killing in Darfur was caused by global warming. Apparently, sub-Saharan Africa has been drying for the past two decades, and Ban attributes the drying to “man-made global warming.”

Is there something to global warming? Probably. Pouring tons of carbon into the atmosphere very likely has caused some unintended consequences. Nonetheless, even the celebrated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made predictions and pronouncements more modest than Al Gore’s hyperbolic hysteria.

Even if drought conditions in sub-Saharan African could be directly attributed to carbon emissions (which is impossibly complex), the problem in Darfur is not drought. It is genocide. The Sudanese government and allies who are racially Arab have been systematically slaughtering black Africans. Unlike the conflict in other parts of the Sudan, both sides are Muslim. The killing in Darfur is based almost solely on ethnicity. Over 300,000 are dead, and the number is climbing. The United States Holocaust Museum has a helpful summary.

The problem in Darfur is sin. Evil had darkened the human heart. Rape, murder, genocide are not caused by climate change. Although droughts can make life horribly difficult, they do not force people to exterminate their neighbors.

Why then would an intelligent man like the U.N. General Secretary blame global warming? I honestly don’t know. Perhaps, it is easier. Perhaps, it is easier to sign treaties to cut carbon emissions than to change hearts and minds. We all want to do something, but who wants to do the hard work of changing hatred to love?

Beautiful Television

I watched Special Report with Brit Hume on Fox News this evening. At the end of each program, Brit usually offers a short comedy bit via David Letterman or Jimmy Kimmel. Tonight was a little different. Brit offered video via YouTube from Got Talent, the British program that inspired American Idol.

In the clip, Paul Potts, a mobile phone salesman from South Wales, sings opera. On first glace, Potts does not strike an inspiring pose. He looks just like everyone else. Then, he sings. He brings you to tears. Shows like American Idol usually bring people down to bring ratings up. What a beautiful moment on television.

It reminded me of that scene in Shawshank Redemption where Tim Robbin’s character, Andy, plays an record of opera over the loudspeaker of the prison. Morgan Freeman’s character, Red, another prisoner, comments…

"I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don't want to know. Some things are best left unsaid. I'd like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can't be expressed in words, and makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you, those voices soared higher and farther than anybody in a gray place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away, and for the briefest of moments, every last man in Shawshank felt free."

For just a brief moment, the ironic, sarcastic, and crass world in which we live dissolved away.

UPDATE: Paul Potts sings "Con te partirò" in the Semi-Final.

FINAL UPDATE: Paul Potts wins!

Socially Redeeming

I had the opportunity last week to hear an interesting exchange between Dennis Prager and Christopher Hitchens. Dennis Prager is a conservative radio commentator who has taught and written on Judaism, Russia and law. Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic. He is also an avowed atheist having recently published, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

During this exchange, Prager is trying to get Hitchens to avoid a blanket condemnation of everything religious.

PRAGER: If you were in an American city that you were not familiar with, alone, late at night, and you couldn’t find your car in a bad neighborhood. You saw ten men walking toward you would or would you not be relieved to know that they just attended a Bible class?

HITCHENS: Not relieved. Not alarmed either necessarily, but not relieved. It’s irrelevant to me in other words. If they had just come from studying Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, then I would feel positively cheered up. Or if they were members of the local Thomas Jefferson Society.

I have heard Prager’s question before, and until now, I thought that it was clever. Hitchens impresses me here. He handles the question deftly. Although I, unlike Hitchens, would be relieved to find out the men had attended a Bible study, I also would be relieved if they were members of the Thomas Jefferson Society. Frankly, I would even be relieved to find out that they had just attended a concert of Bach concertos, or a class on oil painting, or a lecture on thermodynamics.

Prager’s point is a modest one. Let’s allow for the tolerance of religion because it has socially redeeming value. He succeeds in making his point. However, this defense of religion on the basis of social value is ultimately a weak one. Hitchens and I can provide a multitude of other socially redeeming activities. Moreover, we can find religious activity that is not socially redeeming. What if the Bible study in question was sponsored by the Aryan Nation?

I have listened to many of the church gurus who preach that the church must meet the needs of people. We want well-adjusted, self-actualized folks who stay in school and don’t do drugs. That’s okay. The church should strive to be socially redeeming. However, we exist for deeper reasons. We confess that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life.” If we forget that, we may have a hard time justifying our existence.

A Few Thoughts At Arlington National Cemetery

This last week, our family was on vacation in Washington D.C. On our last day, we visited Arlington National Cemetery. I’ve been to the nation’s capitol twice. Surprisingly, this was my first extended visit of the cemetery. The place was beautiful, somber and serious. My family watched the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown. The ceremony was rehearsed. Every motion was planned. There was nothing spontaneous here. Nonetheless, every moment suggested respect and honor. Echoing Abraham Lincoln‘s words about another military cemetery, the dead laid here have consecrated this ground, “far above our poor power to add or detract.”

In the recent issue of First Things, Joseph Bottum has a fascinating article entitled, “Death & Politics.” It deserves reading and rereading. The topics range widely and subtly. Bottum is trying to grasp at something deep and mysterious. He concludes…

These are dangerous waters to stir to life, but without them we lack thickness, seriousness, and purpose in our political endeavors. We create true communities only when we have shared dead. Everything else is artificial, and adventitious, and temporary, and incomplete. This is a frightening truth, for the dead we share may be those we kill instead of those for whom we grieve. But dangerous or not, it remains the human condition.

Death may hold clues to our search for meaning. Unfortunately, we don’t see it. Our modern world tries to avoid death by cheating it or hiding it away. We idolize youth and youth culture, and we are unsure how to deal with the elderly. There is even now a movement in Europe called “anonymous death” where the dead are buried in unmarked graves without ceremony. In a world where madmen try to create meaning by spilling blood, we ignore the metaphysical role of death at our peril.

It’s interesting. I accept the notion of “substitutionary atonement.” Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, taking my punishment. Our congregation will even sing, “There is a Fountain Filled with Blood.” Still, I can understand those who are uncomfortable with the imagery. The whole thing sounds a bit gory. Nonetheless, if death and fear of death lie at the root of the human condition, the spilled blood of Christ makes even more sense. Jesus Christ experiences what is quintessentially human (at least in its fallen state), death. His sacrifice consecrates his life. By dying on the cross and rising again, Jesus destroys death’s grip on who we are.

Newsletter: Calling and Commitment

CALLING AND COMMITMENT
OF
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Our Calling:
We are equipping the Church for the life of faith.

Our Commitment:
Relying on the grace found in Jesus Christ,
we glorify and enjoy God in all things.

Holding closely to the truth of God’s Word,
we ask with courage difficult questions of our faith and life.

Loved by God,
we show compassion respecting each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Guided by Christ’s commands,
we strive to love God, to love our neighbor, and to make disciples.

Approved by the session, March 2007.

Star Wars and Pretension

Yes, the thirtieth anniversary of Star Wars is a big deal. Before I knew Aristotle, Nietzsche, or Wittgenstein, I knew Yoda. Before I knew Athanasius, John Calvin, or David Bosch, I knew Obi Wan Kenobi. For better or worse, the movies helped define me. I understand the heroic partly thanks to Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia and Han Solo. Yes, I am a geek.

As pretentious as that last paragraph, I was overwhelmed tonight by the History Channel’s special, Star Wars Revealed. They trudged out religious scholars, classicists, film critics, journalists, and the rest. Everyone spoke such grandiose and intellectual cheese that I needed a good reality check.

The story of Luke Skywalker and the redemption of Darth Vader is more based on westerns, war movies, and pulp science fiction than heroic myths and biblical motifs. If the movies connect on larger themes found in classical literature, that only acknowledges that our culture is saturated with those themes. George Lucas, when he is at his best, is simply a good story-teller. When he is at his worst, Howard the Duck.

He also grabs and borrows from everywhere. Tatooine, The desert homeworld of Anakin and Luke Skywalker, bares a striking resemblance to the planet Dune in the books by Frank Herbert. Coruscant, the political center of the Star Wars universe, is cribbed from Trantor, a planet in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy.

Unfortunately, Joseph Campbell came along and claimed that Star Wars fit his broad generalizations of the world’s mythologies. Although interesting, many of the connections seemed forced. Steven Hart does a pretty good job deflating much of the myth of Campbell’s analysis. At one point, Hart writes,

If this is the level of analysis at work, then why should this myth-mongering stop with Lucas? The original "Rocky," released the year before "Star Wars," follows Campbell's mythic template much more closely than "Star Wars": just imagine Burgess Meredith as the wise old sage, Burt Young as the guardian of the threshold and Carl Weathers as Darth Vader. (Pop quiz: Where do the pet turtles fit in?) Campbell's approach can give any adventure story, from "Bulldog Drummond" to "The Perils of Pauline," a place in the pantheon. In fact, his acolytes are hard at work doing just that with such movies as “The Matrix” and “The Wizard of Oz.” It adds up to little more than a party game for drunken grad students, or a smoke screen for filmmakers covering their tracks.

Star Wars helped define my generation, but it isn’t profound. It’s a Rorschach test on celluloid. For many, Darth Vader and his Storm Troopers stand in for Hitler and his Storm Troopers. One black film critic from the History Channel special noted that Darth Vader reminded him of pimps from inner-city Detroit. As viewers in Prague saw Star Wars for the first time in 1991, there was no doubt that the evil Empire was the Soviet Union. The Emperor Palpatine is George W. Bush, Clifton Kirkpatrick or Dean Wormer depending on your perspective.

Unfortunately, as George Lucas added the prequels and modified the originals, he has actually muddied the waters. The Force which was never very coherent, now makes little sense. “Trust your feelings,” we are told, yet a Jedi must set aside his emotions. The midi-chlorians turns the Jedi from a order of space Jesuit/Ninjas, who have received the proper training and discipline, to a group of supermen with the right blood.

Still, I love the movies. I enjoy sharing them with my son. Perhaps, the best advice is Han Solo’s to Luke Skywalker as the Millenium Falcon makes its escape from the Death Star, “Don’t get cocky, kid.”

Albert Einstein: God and Ethics

Albert Einstein has been making a splash in the popular culture lately. I am aware of about a dozen recent references to Einstein in articles and on television and radio. I realize that Walter Isaacson has recently published a biography of the scientist, Einstein: His Life and Universe. I also understand that this biography was partly based on recently released letters. Still, I don’t know if the excitement has been generated by the book or if the book was generated by the excitement.

Recently, NPR aired an essay of Albert Einstein for “This I Believe”. Although NPR science correspondent, Robert Krulwich, read the essay, it was originally aired in Einstein’s voice in 1954.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty.

The words are poetic. The words also summarize the faith of the man who famously said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” However, the god of Einstein is not the God of Abraham or Jesus.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves.

Einstein’s faith is rooted in natural theology. He rejects a god who is personal or who has a will of his own. Einstein sounds much like a Deist from the 18th Century. Please don’t get me wrong, I realize its inadequacy, but frankly, I prefer the Einstein’s Deism to Richard Dawkins’ atheism any day. The question remains, however, can Deism resist the devolution into atheism.

Einstein then turns from the cosmic to the human.

Man's ethical behavior should be effectively grounded on compassion, nurture and social bonds. What is moral is not the divine, but rather a purely human matter, albeit the most important of all human matters.

Ethical human behavior, according to Einstein, has nothing to do with God. It is rooted in historical circumstances. Unfortunately, there remains a problem, a “crisis“ in Einstein‘s words.

His position in society, then, is such that that which drives his ego is encouraged and developed, and that which would drive him toward other men (a weak impulse to begin with) is left to atrophy.

In other words, our society does not provide proper motivation for the love of justice or the love of our neighbor. Einstein suggests a possible solution.

It is my belief that there is only one way to eliminate these evils, namely, the establishment of a planned economy coupled with an education geared towards social goals.

When I first heard this essay, I was perplexed. The mystery of the cosmos and a “planned economy” seemed a strange mix. However, Einstein is a smart guy. He didn’t just make this up. I realize now that he was completely consistent in his argument.

Human ethics demands a foundation. If the God of the universe is unwilling to take the job, then we must do it ourselves. The state must use force to compel its citizens to do the right thing. Granted, the state uses force all the time. The state uses violence or threatens to use violence to curb people from killing, stealing, etc.

However, in the past, we also would remind people of their duty to God or the natural law. As Christians, we even believe that the Holy Spirit can generate compassion and love in a person‘s life. These softer appeals, although not universally applicable, have a greater ability to influence society.

In contrast, Einstein inadvertently rejects those quieter influences by rejecting a God who cares about human behavior. Einstein’s hope for a compassionate society can only be achieved through force. Einstein praises the morality rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, yet he wants the ethics without the God.

This I Believe

Since I received an Ipod in March of 2007, I’ve been a regular listener to “This I Believe.” National Public Radio recently revived a radio series started by Edward R. Murrow in 1951. Back then, Murrow described the series in this way:

This I Believe. By that name, we present the personal philosophies of thoughtful men and women in all walks of life. In this brief space, a banker or a butcher, a painter or a social worker, people of all kinds who need have nothing more in common than integrity, a real honesty, will write about the rules they live by, the things they have found to be the basic values in their lives.

In it’s current manifestation, NPR airs essays weekly from ordinary and extraordinary people about what matters to them. Some of the essays, I find touching. Others, I find disheartening. I’m still waiting for someone to quote the Nicene Creed a la Stephen Colbert, but you can’t have everything. It’s a good window on American culture.

Tomorrow: A look at Albert Einstein's essay.

New Churches, Renewed Churches

Last week, Presbyweb provided a link to a news article out of the United Methodist Church. Apparently, the Methodists want to start 650 new churches by 2012. I applaud the effort. New church development is essential to the life and vitality of a denomination. I have often been frustrated that the PCUSA doesn’t seem similarly interested. In Palo Duro Presbytery, for example, no one remembers the last time a new church was started. Granted, the overall population of the Texas plains peaked at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Still, there is potential in some of the urban areas of the presbytery.

Although I was inclined to be sympathetic, I became quickly saddened. Rev. Thomas Butcher, the chair of congregational development in the United Methodist Church tried to explain his rationale for focusing on new churches.

…the common outcry among United Methodists, Mr. Butcher said, is for renewal, not new churches. His response? "It's easier to give birth than to raise Lazarus from the dead," he said in a report to the Council of Bishops.

New churches, he said, need to have a younger and more diverse membership to reach the changing demographics in the U.S. About 35 percent of the nation's population don't attend church.

I’m disappointed that Rev. Butcher seems so dismissive of existing congregations. Why do we have to choose between new church development and congregational renewal? Do only folks in growing suburban areas need churches that are vital and faithful?

Established congregations are less desirable because they are set in their ways. They are filled with curmudgeons who are unable to draw church members of an attractive demographic. Rather than call people to repentance and a deepening faith, it is easier to start with a self-selecting group who feel comfortable with the culture of the new church. Renewal is hard work. It requires leadership, sacrifice and love. It is not for the timid.

Thankfully, the majority of established churches have signs of life. There are men and women in those congregations earnestly seeking to be followers of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, some established churches can be stubborn, mean, and even faithless. Some have been dead for more than three days and “stinketh” (John 11:39, KJV). Jesus, however, is the resurrection. Even Lazarus can be raised from the dead.

Thus Spake Jeffy

Here's a new way to enjoy your favorite Bill Keane comics and express your existential angst at the same time. The Nietzsche Family Circus combines random Family Circus comics with random quotes from Friedrich Nietzsche.

https://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com/

Newsletter: Our Calling: Equipping the Church

Over the past year and a half, our congregation has been engaged in a process of discernment. Instead of focusing on our wants and desires, we have actively sought out God’s will for the First Presbyterian Church. We have turned to prayer and Bible study. We have examined our heritage, our ministries and our community. Through all the efforts, we realized that God is calling us to a particular ministry here in this place and time: We are equipping the Church for the life of faith.

As Christians, we affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord. We accept the historic teachings of the church. We acknowledge our faith must be lived out in word and action. Moreover, we believe that God wants our congregation to take seriously Jesus’ command “to make disciples.” We are called to walk with others--to equip the Church for the hard work of worship, study, service and witness. Beyond simply imparting the facts of faith, we must equip the church on how to be Christ‘s ambassadors, how to develop the disciplines of prayer and Bible study, how to make the tough choices. Nonetheless, it would be the height of hubris to think we do this alone. In fact, we are merely instruments of God’s grace.

Now is the time for leadership. In the coming weeks and months, we will be practically applying our calling to our life together. What does worship look like in an equipping church? What is the best way that Christian Education can equip others for the life of faith? How do we do mission? What is stewardship? How can our facilities serve our calling? This won’t be an easy task. It will require energy, intelligence, imagination and love. Still, these are exciting times for the First Presbyterian Church as we respond to God’s call.

"Louisville Papers" Revealed

Today in the Presbyterian Outlook, the Constitutional Services Department and the Office of Legal Services at the General Assembly respond to the infamous "Louisville Papers." Back in August of 2006, the Layman reported that the denominational lawyers circulated secret documents to presbytery executives about legal procedures relating to churches and their property. The Layman drawing upon the Watergate era nomenclature of the "Pentagon Papers" dubbed the legal advice, the "Louisville Papers."

I know that some have been hyperventilating over the documents. They suggest that the "Louisville Papers" recommend strong arm tactics to presbyteries to prevent property from leaving the denomination. Personally, I find the statements rather standard legal fair. They clearly have a vested interest in protecting the property of the denomination. Since unification of the United Presbyterian Church USA and the Presbyterian Church US in 1983 if not before, the property of the local congregation has been held in trust by the presbyteries. These documents suggest nothing new.

What I find troublesome is the handling of the situation by our denominational leadership. Clifton Kirkpatrick only contacted the powers-that-be to respond to the controversy a few weeks ago. You don't have to like what's written in the Layman, but please read the thing. After you read it, then make your defense (if there is one). The folks in Louisville need a few lessons in public relations.

More importantly, why did the denominational officials keep the papers "confidential"?

While some have focused only recently on these materials, they are not new. They were first prepared in 2001, in response to requests from presbyteries and their legal advisers. Moreover, they have never been "secret," as some have claimed. The OGA paper has never born any label indicating confidentiality. The Legal Services memo is a confidential attorney document. Like many attorney-written documents, it was handled in this way in order to avoid its misuse by others who might wish to start or pursue civil litigation. These documents were intended to provide background information and pastoral aid to presbyteries, not to be used as legal briefs.

I've made this observation before, but perhaps it needs repeating. If a document is provided to the presbyteries, why shouldn't the presbyteries know about it? A presbytery is made of elders and pastors. These legal documents were provided to presbytery executives and staff. They are not the same thing. Although executives play an important role in the ministry of the presbytery, they are essentially the "hired help." Granted, there are times in the life of the church where confidentiality is important. Some pastoral issues are delicate and require discretion, but general advice about legal process is not one of them.

Transparency is always the best policy. I have no problem with denominational lawyers offering advice. Such advice could have led to a general process relating to departing congregations and their property. If such a process existed, there can be no complaint of discrimination. It applies evenly, fairly to everyone who wishes to leave the denomination. If people don't like the process, presbytery-wide debate can lead to the adoption of an improved process. The "Louisville Papers" kerfuffle could have easily been avoided by the Office of the Stated Clerk and Legal Services.

UPDATE: I erroneously suggested that the Layman was origin of the name, "Louisville Papers." In fact, it was given by Classical Presbyterian.

Newsletter: Bunnies and Butterflies are not Enough

The Apostle Paul says it in the clearest language possible, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Cor 15:14). During Easter, the Church celebrates explicitly what we celebrate implicitly every Lord’s Day--Jesus Christ is risen. Trying to articulate our faith, we often resort to metaphor and analogy. The spring reminds us of new life after the death of winter. Bunnies and eggs, associated with renewal and fecundity, dominate our Easter decorations. Even butterflies who no longer lie dormant in their cocoons now grace our bulletin covers, vestments and banners.

Although helpful, metaphors also limit us. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not about the “Circle of Life” from some Disney movie. Death is real and terrible. Jesus Christ’s death was particularly horrific. Nailed to a cross, Jesus bled, suffered, and died. For all practical purposes, death was the final solution. All of the hopes inspired by Jesus should have been crucified with him. By definition, nothing should survive death.

Then Jesus rose from the grave. God shattered the power of death. The way the world had always worked was no more. In case we missed it the first time, Paul reiterates, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17). With Jesus Christ alive today, God proclaims that hope is more than wishful thinking. We are freed from the bondage of ever day leading to an inevitable death. Breaking away, God offers forgiveness and grace unto life everlasting.

Newsletter: Lent With a Side of Sausage

I have a love-hate relationship with Lent.

For the unaware, the season of Lent begins forty days before Easter. Like the holy days of Christmas and Easter, Lent was a later invention of the Church. The season recalls Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days after his baptism. There he fasted and was tempted by the devil. The Lenten season even suggests the forty years that the Israelites wandered in the desert. There God prepared and shaped them for life in his promised land. Lent is a time for repentance, prayer and fasting as we anticipate the glory of Jesus' resurrection.

As Christians, we rely only on the grace found in Jesus Christ. Despite the fact that we are undeserving, God continues to love us. Only through God's actions in Jesus, am I reconciled to God. That belief makes me cast a suspicious eye on Lent. Are we trying through our own piety to manipulate God to love us more? If so, it is a foolhardy attempt.

In 1522, a group of Christians in Zurich heady with the profound knowledge of God's grace ate sausages during Lent. The simple defiant act of eating meat during the prescribed fast threw the city into an uproar. The Reformation came to Zurich, and the disciplines of Lent demanded by the Church were rejected.

Christians like grace. As a small child, I asked my parents, "How do I know that I've done enough to get into heaven?" The answer is that God's love and mercy is sufficient for you and me. However, many Christians who embrace God's grace have forgotten about its high cost. Grace doesn't cost us anything, but God paid a heavy price. Jesus, our Emmanuel, suffered and died on a cross bearing the sins of the world. This costly grace calls us to faithfulness. We live lives of prayer, worship, and sacrifice. We delve into the Scriptures to understand better our Lord. We forgive, love and show mercy because of the grace that we have received.

No season is better than another. Still if we decide to spend Lent reflecting on the incredible cost of God's grace and our response, it will be time well-spent. If the disciplines of Lent are less about us and more about God, the time can be redeemed. As we enjoy our sausages, let us also be shaped for the life God intends.

Super Bowl Win

Sports and Christianity have had a long tradition together probably dating before the formation of the YMCA in 1844. Prayers before games and players who attribute their wins to Jesus have become part of the pop culture. In fact, the latter has been parodied again and again. I must admit that some declarations of faith on the field appear to suggest that God favors one team over another. The statements are usually innocent, but I still cringe at the mixture of religion and athletic rivalries. Perhaps, that is why I was so impressed by the words of Tony Dungy, the coach of the 2007 Super Bowl Champions, the Indianapolis Colts.

During the post game show on CBS, Dungy was asked about the “social significance” of the win.

Jim Nantz of CBS Sports: This is one of those moments, Tony, where there is also social significance in this victory, and to have your hands on the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Tell me what this means to you right now.

Tony Dungy: I'll tell you what. I'm proud to be representing African-American coaches, to be the first African-American to win this. It means an awful lot to our country. But again, more than anything, I've said it before, Lovie Smith and I, not only the first two African-Americans, but Christian coaches showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way. And we're more proud of that.

You can win doing it the Lord’s way. He is not saying that God chose the Indianapolis Colts. More importantly, he is saying, in the world of professional sports, you don’t have to give into temptation. You can play by God’s rules and still win.

Both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, the Chicago Bears’ coach, act differently than other coaches. One commentator speaking about Tony Dungy says…

He has always done what good men do, eschewing the tyrannical approach of some of his colleagues, proving you can succeed while treating people with decency and respect rather than terrorizing them.

A Boston Globe column talking about Lovie Smith says…

Lovie doesn't yell and Lovie doesn't swear. (The same is true of Lovie's friend, Tony Dungy.) Take both of those options away and at least half of America's professional and college coaches would not be able to function. So how does he make his points?

"We have a coach who isn't a yeller or a screamer," acknowledges cornerback Nathan Vasher. "What he always talks about is being a real man, and we have real men on this team. What he wants us to know is that it is not about you. It's about the team."

Character matters. For Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, character has it’s source in their Christian faith.

Christian vs Christ Follower

This video is part of a series made by Christ Community Church. I found the series after reading about it on a discussion board at allelon.org. I know nothing about the church except from their website, and any criticism of the videos is not directed toward the church or its members.

The video borrows the format of those PC vs. Mac advertisements. These commercials basically suggest that PCs are fuddy-duddy and Macs are cool. In this version, the fuddy-duddy is the “Christian” and the hipster is the “Christ follower”. Throughout the series of videos, there are slams on Christian bumper stickers, WWJD bracelets, the contemporary Christian music genre, dressing up for church, self-righteousness, and having faith for show. The “Christian” is a cartoon character who garners no sympathy. Frankly, I want to be the “Christ follower” who dresses casually for church, listens to U2, and has a Christian walk which requires no accoutrements. Still, the whole thing smacks of “I’m better than you.”

By calling the dweeb, “Christian,” the video is attempting to be controversial. The world is full of self-professed Christians who represent the faith sometimes better and sometimes worse. All these Christians are lumped together and labeled less than faithful. We look over at the “Christian,” and say, “Thank you, God, that I am not like this dork over here.” These are Pharisees who sat at the cool kids table in middle school.

The real lesson for each of us is that the sin of self-righteousness is always near. We think debates about Christ, the church, and the Scriptures are important ones. We hold positions that we believe are correct. Otherwise we wouldn’t hold them. Nonetheless, our rightness does not forgive our arrogance or blindness to our own sins.

Lefsa is Lotus

While traveling to Ohio to visit family, we had a short layover in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Normally, airports look and feel all the same. If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Walking from one gate to another, Chicago could be St. Louis. Kansas City could be Cleveland. A layover rarely allows anyone to experience the locale in any meaningful way.

This layover was different. Among the many announcements on the loudspeaker, I heard,

“Someone has left a bag of lefsa at the security area. Please report to the security area and describe your bag to claim your lefsa.”

Lefsa is a traditional Norwegian flatbread made of potatoes. With that announcement, I knew that I could only be in Minnesota.

Sadly, I could find no krumkake for the Christmas holidays. Uff-da.

Why Are Unicorns Hollow?

Before becoming a pastor, I taught a few years of mathematics in a high school. Although my time there was short, they made a great impression on me. Those years have influenced and shaped my thinking ever since. My only regret is for the poor students who suffered me as a teacher. I was fresh out of college and ready to take on the world.

In high school, I had loved geometry. Using reason alone, so I thought, we reconstructed the world. I loved the objectivity and rationality that it proclaimed. When I was the teacher, I tried to instill that same sense in my students. The first day of geometry class, I read to them from Descartes’ "Discourse on the Method." (I told you that my students suffered.)

Anyway, the year was an utter failure. I learned that geometry was not merely a collection of givens, postulates, axioms, and theorems. Beyond reason, there were hunches, hints, and guesses involved. Observation, past experience, and even tradition were important. Students had to learn to think, and this process was more than a system of rational deduction.

I remembered this hard-earned knowledge while reflecting on Richard Dawkins. The author of "The God Delusion" has been getting a bunch of press lately. Dawkins is an avowed atheist, zealous in his attacks on religion. Where many are suggesting that science and religion can be in dialogue, Dawkins will grant no ground to religion. In fact, God should be excised from human thought. Recently I heard a recent podcast of "To the Best of Our Knowledge" from Wisconsin Public Radio which included an interview with Dawkins.

Although the interviewer Steve Paulson asks some intriguing questions that deserve more commentary, I was more interested in hearing what Dawkins had to say.

Interviewer: What about the old adage that science deals with the "how" questions and religion deals with the "why" questions?"

Dawkins: Yes, I think that is markedly stupid if I may say so. What on earth is a "why" question? There are "why" questions that mean something in a Darwinian world. We say, "Why do birds have wings to fly with?" They don’t mean that. They mean "why?" in a sort of deliberative purposeful sense. Those of us who do not believe in religion, supernatural religion, would say, there is no such thing as a "why" question in that sense.

Now the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence with the word, "why," does not mean that English question deserves or should receive an answer. I could say, "Why are unicorns hollow?" That’s a perfectly good English sentence. It appears to mean something but you don’t think that it deserves an answer.

Interviewer: But it seems to me that the big "why" questions are, "Why are we here?", "What is our purpose in life?" Okay, that’s a "what" question. But it’s basically a "why" question.

Dawkins: That’s right it is a "why" question, but it’s not a question that deserves an answer.

Interviewer: But I think most people would say those questions which are central to the way most people think about their lives. Those are the big existential questions. But those are also questions that are beyond science.

Dawkins: If you mean what is the purpose of the existence of the universe that quite simply is begging the question. If you happen to be religious you think that’s a meaningful question. Those of us who do not believe in a god, will say, that is as illegitimate as asking, "Why are unicorns hollow?" It just shouldn’t be put. It is not a proper question to be put. It does not deserve a answer.

According to Dawkins, the question, "What is the purpose of life?" is completely illegitimate. The question is as pointless as asking, "Why are unicorns hollow?" As a committed follower of Jesus Christ, I disagree. That probably wouldn’t surprise anyone. However, I find the statement bizarre on a completely rational level.

Throughout the history of humanity, people have wrestled with a variation of "What is the purpose of life?" Dawkins basically suggests that they were all wasting their time. Plato, Aristotle, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and even Nietzsche did not think that the question was illegitimate. Of course, each of them would probably find serious disagreement with the others, but that’s not the point. Richard Dawkins suggests that he is smarter than all these guys. With a turn of the phrase, he says the question that has dominated human thought for ages is out-of-bounds.

Later, Dawkins tries to explain why he thinks such thought "begs the question."

Dawkins: ...A legitimate question is "Where do the laws of physics come from?" An illegitimate question in my view is "What is the purpose of the laws of physics?" That implies that there is some kind of deliberate purpose-giver or purpose-thinker...

Perhaps, there is a begging of the question. Perhaps, there is an assumption of a purpose-giver. However, human history has suggested many purpose-givers, and most do not require a deity. Besides God, other possible purpose-givers have included nature, reason, history, wealth, or race to name a few. Some have suggested that humanity itself is the purpose-giver. Still others have claimed answered the question, "What is the purpose of life?" with, "There is no purpose."

Dawkins himself is begging the question. Like I did with my students, Dawkins has required a truncated view of human knowledge. If something doesn’t fit with his world view, he proclaims it illegitimate. He sounds as bad as the fundamentalists that he decries.

Softly and Tenderly Calling?

As I opened the church's post office box today, I found a card addressed to me by name. It was from Union Pacific trying to entice me to a life on the rails.

This is a great time to begin a career at Union Pacific. We have a wide range of jobs open right now--jobs for electricians and mechanics, jobs for commercial drivers, electronic technicians and welders, even jobs for people who would like to be a conductor or an engineer somday. All these jobs pay well and come with great benefits packages.

As I read this, my mind was taken away to the engine car of a Union Pacific train. I could hear the horn, feel the moving parts, and see the sweeping majesty of the continental United States. Does Union Pacific have a policy of targeting pastors during the busy Christmas season? Does God's call come with a conductor's uniform and holepunch? I will never hear the lonely whistle of a train the same again.

Conan the Barbarian (and Texan)

Here I am minding my own business, reading the Wall Street Journal’s on-line OpinionJournal. There I discover an article about Conan the Barbarian by John Miller. Of course, I’m going to read it. The article is about Texas author Robert E. Howard and his creation of Conan. Miller mentions a new biography of Howard, “Blood and Thunder,” by Mark Finn.

Mark has recently moved to our fair city, and I’ve had a few conversations with him. Mark takes pains in his book to show Howard as a Texas author. I was intrigued to discover that Conan was greatly influenced by the Texas lore of oilmen and gunfighters. When Conan describes himself, it is quintessentially Texan: “I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.” For better or for worse, Conan is a Texan (mainly better).

Tacky Television Journalism

I take my news from a variety of sources. Some more reputable than others. Some probably more fair than others. I listen to those who squawk about media bias, and my reaction is, "so what?" Objective journalism has always been a rare commodity. Pick up a newspaper from the 19th Century. Back then, no one would be surprised to find a particular newspaper trumpeting a particular political party. Discerning readers learned to read between the lines. They took into account the source of their news. Unfortunately, fairness in media is ultimately a pipe dream. Better time would be spent encouraging the free exchange of ideas and teaching people to read with a critical eye.

I was watching Fox News this morning. I generally like Fox News except for its nasty tendency to be tabloid. Yes, its reporters are often politically conservative, but the real bias is for the sensational. The top news story for today is the health of Senator Tim Johnson from South Dakota. Apparently, he has had bleeding in the brain caused by a congenital malformation. My prayers are with him and his family. I definitely wish him a speedy and full recovery.

This is an important news story. Even the political angle about the future of the Democratic majority in the Senate is fair game. However, the Fox reporter today played excerpts from a conference call that Johnson had with reporters. In the phone call, Johnson's voice become more and more slurred. That is not news. The slurred voice of a suffering senator served no purpose but titillation. I know that there are countless other examples on the cable networks, but this was the incident that got caught in my craw today. It was tacky, and I am greatly disappointed in Fox News.

My Calvinist belief in total depravity remains unchanged. I shouldn't be surprised by the tasteless conference call.

Doubting Mary?

I’m glad that Protestants are giving Mary, the mother of Jesus, another look. Like most Protestants, I am very concerned about language that calls her the co-mediatrix. Likewise, I believe most Marian devotion draws attention away from the primacy of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Still, Mary remains a women of incredible faith. She is a model for all of us. She deserves to be praised. I don’t even mind when people claim her perpetual virginity. After all, Martin Luther and John Calvin claimed the same for her. Protestants should be able to echo her cousin Elizabeth when she proclaims about Mary, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42).

In 2002, Christianity Today did a cover article on Mary by Tom Oden and J.I. Packer. It was a helpful recovery of Mary for Protestants. Only a few years behind, our own Presbyterians Today has recently printed an article by Jon Sweeney entitled, “Mary, the First Disciple.” Although I appreciate making Mary accessible to a Presbyterian audience, I was dismayed with the thrust of the article.

Luke’s Gospel tells the story. Gabriel came to Mary and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

And then came Mary’s various words of hesitancy: “But she was much perplexed…pondered…afraid…’How can this be?’” [ellipses in the original]

Sometimes after her shock subsided, she replied: “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” She believed, and in so believing, became the first disciple of her as yet unborn son.

Even so, Mary was also the first person in the Gospels to demonstrate that belief does not come without some measure of question and doubt. Centuries of tradition have tended to erase that fact, making the images of Mary into unerring and unflinching gazes of certitude. Don’t believe it. Mary is the first and foremost disciple because she shows us how to wait on God, expect God, have awe for God, and hope for God, but not with an easy credulity. Hers was not an unquestioning belief; her mixture of doubt and faith is the sign of a mature disciple.

Now, questions do come up in the life of faith. As a pastor, I encourage my parishioners to wrestle with their faith, to ask tough questions. When I read the Psalms, I find the spiritual life to be a passionate one. The psalmist asks questions of God, he offers his laments to God, and he even gets angry with God. I don’t think that the psalmist is acting in doubt or outside the faith. Questions will come because conflicts come and choices are made. Jesus often asked difficult questions which shake our faith to the core.

Doubt seems to be a different thing. Rather than questioning how we should live or quibbling over a particular doctrine, doubt is about rejection or distrust. The model for doubt in the Bible is not Mary, but rather Job’s wife whose advice to her husband is “Curse God and die.” In fact, Mary’s faithfulness is placed in direct contrast to Zechariah’s distrust. After Gabriel foretells the birth of John the Baptist, Zechariah says, “How shall I know this?” Zechariah seeks a sign, and Gabriel silences him because of Zechariah’s unbelief (Luke 1:20). In contrast, Mary asks, “How will this be, since I do not know a man?” Her question draws out clarification rather than expressing distrust. With Gabriel’s response that this would be a virgin birth, Mary’s question emphasizes the miracle of the story. Mary is not a model for doubt.

Nonetheless, I do recognize that doubt does happen. The best of us have had those “dark nights of the soul.” Some of us would even argue that our faith is better for going through them. Still, doubt is not a preferable state. Although most of us can identify with the prodigal son, we should not pattern our lives after him. For those crippled by doubt, God will not forsake. He continues to love us even when we reject him. However, mature discipleship is never a mixture of doubt and faith. To think otherwise is projecting our thoughts and feelings on the mother of Jesus.

Newsletter: Fourth Down

I’ve had football on my brain. Maybe, it’s because our high school team is in the playoffs. Maybe, it’s just that autumn is the best time to play touch football in the backyard. Nonetheless, last week, I was fascinated when I heard about a book on football by a Berkley economics professor.

The book is entitled, “It’s the Fourth Down and What Does the Bellman Equation Say?” by David Romer. During a football game, every coach faces a decision at the fourth down. Should the players continue to move the ball down the field and hope for another first down, or should the team kick a field goal? Romer has collected historical data and has applied mathematical probabilities to that problem. According to his data, punting is often a bad call. Moreover, coaches regularly take the punt and avoid the risk.

Now, I’m no coach, but it’s clear that the particulars of a game or team make a difference. Coaches have to make tough choices on the field. However, it doesn’t surprise me that most coaches are like most people. We try to avoid taking risks. However, playing it safe often means that we rarely reach our potential.

I am reminded of the parable that Jesus told about the talents (Matthew 25). Remember the man who buried the one talent. He did the safe thing, and things didn’t end well for him. In our lives of faith, we are often called to take risks, to move outside our comfort zones. That might mean reading your Bible regularly, joining a prayer group, volunteering your time, loving the unlovable, or forgiving someone who has hurt you. None of these things are easy, but living to our full potential as the church is God’s calling. Punting is not always the right choice.

Wishing the our team all the best…

Lead us Not into Temptation

Sitting on the kitchen counter is a bowl containing what's left of my son's Halloween candy. Yes, he still has Halloween candy. Although I am thankful that he doesn't gobble the candy within hours like his father did, his resistance may be my downfall. The candy beckons me.

Today as I walked past, I noticed several "fun size" candy bars in the bowl. I remembered hearing Glenn Beck on the radio giving a commentary on Halloween candy. "Fun size" is not fun, he said. Full size, extra-large, 0r giant candy bars are the real fun size. Tiny, namby-pamby, tastes of chocolate are never fun.

A Pastoral Response

In a recent article in the Presbyterian Outlook, Jack Haberer decries the presbyteries who have passed resolutions to abide by the ordination standards in the Book of Order. He states, "Well intended as they are, these overtures miss the real spirit of the work of the Theological Task Force."

I must admit that I am unsure what the real spirit of the work of the Theological Task Force is. The task force members argued that we shouldn’t find legislative solutions to our problems, yet they recommended a byzantine Authoritative Interpretation that most still don’t understand. They were charged to lead the church in theological reflection, yet they merely produced a report with policy recommendations. They claim that they want governing bodies to apply "group discernment methods," yet when sessions and presbyteries try to discern what God wills for the church, they are accused of missing the point.

As I read the task force report, the focus is clearly on ordination standards. The report culminates in that Authoritative Interpretation of G-6.0108. Assuming the best intentions of the task force, the report seems to suggest that ordinations must occur on a case-by-case basis. That no belief or conduct should presumptuously exclude a candidate for ministry. According to the report, standards are aspirational. Only after careful examination, should a determination be made if a candidate meets the standards. I can agree with much of this. This is simply pastoral. A candidate who differs with a minor theological point may not necessarily be in violation of the ordination standards. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t suggest that there are only shades of gray. The candidate who claims that the universe was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure and fears the coming of the Great White Handkerchief would be readily dismissed.

However, the task force went further. In it’s rationale for the Authoritative Interpretation, the task force suggests that governing bodies must determine whether a departure from the standards violates the “essentials of faith and polity.” Only if a violation of standards is such a departure will the candidate be automatically disqualified. The task force members seem to want congregations and presbyteries to debate what constitutes an essential at every examination.

Beyond making a mockery of the constitution, this is a horrible way to treat candidates. Every examination has the potential to move beyond the candidate’s life and faith. Moreover, two candidates with the same qualifications might receive different treatment based on a prejudicial whim. Those presbyteries and sessions who have passed resolutions have acted pastorally. They have removed the rancorous debate away from the time of a candidate’s examination. They have leveled the playing field for all candidates. If necessary, these resolutions can be re-examined and modified again and again. Jack Haberer suggests that those who pass such resolutions and overtures reject grace for the sake of polity. I do not see how a desire for coherence, clarity, and civil discussion is contrary to grace.

Welcome to the Presbyterian Church

Yesterday was World Communion Sunday, and we spent time in our Sunday School classes to teach about Communion.

I was in a class of third graders. In our discussion of how "Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers," one boy asked if Holy Grail was real.

I said, "Yes, if you mean did Jesus actually drink from a cup at the last Supper. However, the stories of King Arthur and the Grail were legends, and there is nothing magical about the cup. What’s more important is that Holy Communion is one of the ways that the Holy Spirit unites us to Jesus and each other."

To which, the children began quoting from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "That’s the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!" Every eight-year-old child, including the girl, was a Monty Python fan. Welcome to the Presbyterian Church!