This past Wednesday marked the beginning of the Season of Lent. There are many practices Christians carry out during this holy season; practices such as fasting and praying that are meant to draw us closer to God as we reflect on the last days of Jesus on this earth. But often we neglect these practices, and I think we may be particularly inclined to neglect these practices during times of stress and uncertainty like we are facing in our current economic situation.
Yet, now is the time that we should be considering the Season of Lent as a period in which we reflect on the vulnerability of life, as represented in Jesus’ last days on earth. The time of Lent should be a period in which we remind ourselves that life is full of uncertainty, as well as the hope of new life God offers to us.
We sometimes shy away from talking about the uncertainty and vulnerability of life, however, for when we do we think we are being distrustful and even faithless. Yet, the reality of life is that it is full of uncertainties. Indeed, to put it simply, there is a certainty to life’s uncertainties. Problems will come upon us, whether these are caused by our own choices or the actions of others and some of these problems can challenge our faith significantly.
There are several questions I think most of us who believe in God ask whenever we face life’s difficulties. Where is God during uncertain times? How should we view life’s changes? What role does faith play during life’s changes? How do we pray through life’s uncertainties? How do we remain faithful during these times? What is God’s answer to life’s tragedies?
These are just a sampling of questions we may ask, some for which we can at least find a plausible answer, but others for which we may never find the solution. But they are important questions for us to ask, and asking them does not make us any less faithful in our belief in God than not asking them. In fact, I would venture to say that if we reject asking these questions, as if we are too pious to do so, then we are not being true to the one who faced his own doubts and fears on the night he was arrested.
As Christians, we are particularly guilty of assuming that all things should work out for us. And, when we and others encounter life’s struggles and tragedies, instead of asking and struggling with deeper theological questions with sheer honesty, we often voice standard, but hollow expressions about life and its uncertainties. We say things like, “God has everything under control,” “Everything will work out for the good,” “Jesus will take care of you,” and “God is teaching you something through this.”
These may seem to be helpful words of encouragement and advice, for they do express some level of truth and offer some hope. However, they also symbolize the wrong assumption we have that because we are Christian, things should work out for us. “Come to Jesus, and he will make your life better,” we often hear and say.
The reality is, however, that life is uncertain for all of us; believer and non-believer. Indeed, as followers of Jesus, why should we assume that our lives should be any less tragic than his own? This is certainly not to say that we should be looking for suffering, as I think some often do. But we must be reminded that Jesus, the one we follow and the one we worship, whose last days we remember during Lent, suffered real evil, real pain, and real death. This should always remind us that suffering is a part of who we are as humans, and even God cannot always relieve our suffering.
I realize that orthodox Christianity has traditionally believed in a God who can do anything; a God who is all powerful. But when I reflect on the life of Jesus, I am inclined to believe that the traditional view of God does not seriously consider the vulnerability of human existence as represented in Jesus’ tragic death. While we often speak about the sovereignty of God in terms of God’s omnipotence, perhaps we need to think more about God’s sovereignty in terms of God’s love; a love through which God makes it possible for God to experience our human pain.
During this particular Season of Lent, when we are constantly hearing of the economic struggles that will have an impact on all of us, and when we continue to see the suffering that happens in our world, let us be reminded that there are no simple theological answers to the problem of human pain, and providing simplistic answers is not being true to our faith. Rather, let us reflect on the suffering of Jesus as emblematic of our human struggle, as well as that event through which God has and continues to experience our sufferings.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Christians should Balance Freedom in Christ with Unity in Christ
Individualism and freedom are hallmarks of Western society. In fact, we Americans are very proud of our freedom. We want to be free and independent to make our own choices about how we live our lives, how we make decisions, who we support in political elections, and free to choose what religion to follow, or to choose not to follow a religion at all. Freedom is a value we should cherish.
Even when we talk about the gospel, we speak about being free in Christ; free from sin and the law and its demands. In fact, the central idea of salvation, that God has bestowed God’s grace on us, is based on the idea that this is a free gift, given not because we have earned it, but because God is gracious towards us. We are indeed free in Christ.
Yet, although the gospel message is one of freedom, we may often take individualism and freedom to a misguided extreme. Certainly individual Christians are free to hear and follow God as God so leads them. However, believers must also take into account that individual freedom may at times contravene Christian unity, which can bring harm to the faith of other believers.
The Apostle Paul, who was certainly the most ardent proponent of the freedom offered in Christ, was nevertheless concerned that Christian freedom find a home within a community of faith, in which we are members of the same body of Christ. Indeed, in reading Paul’s letters we find that he constantly sought to balance Christian freedom with Christian unity.
As evidenced by the letters which he wrote, Paul frequently dealt with issues being raised in the churches across Asia Minor; issues that endangered Christian unity. One particular congregation that received most of his attention was the church at Corinth. This church brought many questions to Paul, and Paul sought to answer these concerns through two epistles that were eventually selected to be a part of the New Testament.
One particular issue that Paul addresses is the eating of food that had been offered to idols. Eating such food was a common practice in the ancient world, but in Corinth, questions must have been raised concerning whether or not believers could eat the meat that was used in such rituals and still remain faithful to Christ. Thus, this church turned to their beloved apostle for answers.
But if we read the passage from 1 Corinthians chapter eight carefully, we will soon discover that Paul does not see this issue as the basic problem. Indeed, Paul only uses the issue of eating to point to a deeper problem, one of arrogance and misguided freedom. It seems that some in Corinth thought themselves to be so much more spiritually knowledgeable than others that they thought they were freer than others to choose to eat the meat offered to idols.
Their rationale might go something like this: “We know that idols do not exist, for God is the only living deity. Therefore, since we have greater spiritual knowledge, we know that the meat sacrificed to these idols is only meat, since the idols are not real. Therefore, since we have this great knowledge, and because we are free in Christ, we can eat the meat that is sacrificed to these idols without defiling ourselves.”
Yet, there is a fundamental problem with their logic: Does their act of freedom demonstrate any faithfulness to God through whom believers have their existence as members of Christ’s body? In other words, does their freedom in Christ allow them to do that which might be harmful to the body of Christ?
Paul’s implicit answer to the Corinthians is very akin to what he makes explicit other places: Freedom in Christ is not an opportunity for the flesh (see Rom. 6:1-2; Gal. 5:13). When we are given freedom in Christ, it does not mean that we can live the way we want to live. Despite our emphasis on our individual relationships to God, we are always and forever members of the body of Christ, and to a great extent we are responsible to other members of that body.
As Christians we do have freedom in Christ. Yet, freedom must always be guided by love; love for God and love for others. The problem for us is that we do not consider how our actions will affect other believers, and we often disregard their best interests. Some of our actions can be so serious as to alienate others from their own faith in Christ. We need to re-examine our actions and form them in ways that build up the body of Christ through loving relationships with one another.
Even when we talk about the gospel, we speak about being free in Christ; free from sin and the law and its demands. In fact, the central idea of salvation, that God has bestowed God’s grace on us, is based on the idea that this is a free gift, given not because we have earned it, but because God is gracious towards us. We are indeed free in Christ.
Yet, although the gospel message is one of freedom, we may often take individualism and freedom to a misguided extreme. Certainly individual Christians are free to hear and follow God as God so leads them. However, believers must also take into account that individual freedom may at times contravene Christian unity, which can bring harm to the faith of other believers.
The Apostle Paul, who was certainly the most ardent proponent of the freedom offered in Christ, was nevertheless concerned that Christian freedom find a home within a community of faith, in which we are members of the same body of Christ. Indeed, in reading Paul’s letters we find that he constantly sought to balance Christian freedom with Christian unity.
As evidenced by the letters which he wrote, Paul frequently dealt with issues being raised in the churches across Asia Minor; issues that endangered Christian unity. One particular congregation that received most of his attention was the church at Corinth. This church brought many questions to Paul, and Paul sought to answer these concerns through two epistles that were eventually selected to be a part of the New Testament.
One particular issue that Paul addresses is the eating of food that had been offered to idols. Eating such food was a common practice in the ancient world, but in Corinth, questions must have been raised concerning whether or not believers could eat the meat that was used in such rituals and still remain faithful to Christ. Thus, this church turned to their beloved apostle for answers.
But if we read the passage from 1 Corinthians chapter eight carefully, we will soon discover that Paul does not see this issue as the basic problem. Indeed, Paul only uses the issue of eating to point to a deeper problem, one of arrogance and misguided freedom. It seems that some in Corinth thought themselves to be so much more spiritually knowledgeable than others that they thought they were freer than others to choose to eat the meat offered to idols.
Their rationale might go something like this: “We know that idols do not exist, for God is the only living deity. Therefore, since we have greater spiritual knowledge, we know that the meat sacrificed to these idols is only meat, since the idols are not real. Therefore, since we have this great knowledge, and because we are free in Christ, we can eat the meat that is sacrificed to these idols without defiling ourselves.”
Yet, there is a fundamental problem with their logic: Does their act of freedom demonstrate any faithfulness to God through whom believers have their existence as members of Christ’s body? In other words, does their freedom in Christ allow them to do that which might be harmful to the body of Christ?
Paul’s implicit answer to the Corinthians is very akin to what he makes explicit other places: Freedom in Christ is not an opportunity for the flesh (see Rom. 6:1-2; Gal. 5:13). When we are given freedom in Christ, it does not mean that we can live the way we want to live. Despite our emphasis on our individual relationships to God, we are always and forever members of the body of Christ, and to a great extent we are responsible to other members of that body.
As Christians we do have freedom in Christ. Yet, freedom must always be guided by love; love for God and love for others. The problem for us is that we do not consider how our actions will affect other believers, and we often disregard their best interests. Some of our actions can be so serious as to alienate others from their own faith in Christ. We need to re-examine our actions and form them in ways that build up the body of Christ through loving relationships with one another.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
“Would Jesus Carry a Gun to Church?”
The Arkansas Legislature is considering a bill that would lift a ban on guns being carried into houses of worship. At the time I am writing these words, the Associated Press reports that the Arkansas House has passed the bill and that the measure would be heading to the Senate for a vote.
Growing up in rural Arkansas, I have come to accept the plethora of guns there are in the state. My dad and my brother are hunters and I have many friends who are hunters. I don’t own a gun myself, but I do respect the right others have to own guns; although I do think we ought to have strict gun laws. But despite how one feels about individuals owning guns, the bill that is now moving through the lawmaking body of Arkansas raises significant theological problems.
Several years ago, there was a trend among young Christians to ask this question, “What would Jesus do?” This question, shortened to WWJD, became a slogan that represented a way of asking about how we should behave in response to Jesus’ behavior. This is good theology, for the question centers on Jesus as the example we are to follow. So, here is another question related to what the lawmakers in Arkansas are considering, “Would Jesus carry a gun to church?”
I think most of us would certainly answer no to this question. But the issue over guns in church raises a larger question about our infatuation with violence that is directly contrary to Jesus’ message and life of non-violence.
There are two significant stories from the life of Jesus that I believe speak to this issue. Both stories derive from the arrest and trial of Jesus, a point at which, if he were to take up the weapon of violence, he certainly would have done so.
In Mark’s telling of the arrest of Jesus, those who come to seize him carry clubs and swords. Jesus’ question about their armaments is very telling and theologically rich for those of us who desire to utilize weapons for our own security and protection. He asks, “Have you come out with swords and clubs?” (Mark 14:48).
The implication of Jesus’ question to them is that he needs not the weapons of violence, for his protection and security is found with God. In other words, though he could have gathered a small army of rebels to fight, and indeed even a legion of angels, he rejected not only the use violence, but also the system that promotes violence.
This idea is made even clearer when Jesus is brought before Pilate, particularly in how the Gospel of John tells the story. In response to Pilate’s questioning about his being a king, Jesus responds, “My kingdom is not from this world” (John 18:36). While we take this to mean that Jesus was informing Pilate that his kingdom is from heaven, which is true, it more likely means that his kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world; kingdoms like Rome that hold imperial power through violence. Indeed, Jesus goes on to imply that if his kingdom was like Rome, then his followers would be fighting for him.
Both of these stories reflect Jesus’ radical ideas about the virtue of non-violence that epitomized his central message. At his arrest and his trial, events that would have triggered a violent reaction from most of us, Jesus rejected the use of weapons and he rejected the system of violence that characterized the society in which he lived. Instead, he placed his full trust in God’s loving care, despite the fact that he would be crucified in an act of state sponsored violence.
And this should cause us to rethink how we live in a world where violence is accepted as necessary. If we claim to be Christian, then this means we should at least seek to follow Christ. And, in following Jesus, we should at least pay close attention to what was central to his life and teachings: Non-violence. As followers of Christ, we must reject our attraction to violence, even when we think it will provide us security.
It seems likely that the bill being considered will pass. More than just bad policy, this decision is a hasty and tragic response to our need to feel safe everywhere we go. If the bill passes, however, I would hope that faithful Christians and faithful churches would reject the need to arm themselves, reject the attempt to create false security, and most importantly, reject violence and the system that promotes it as necessary.
Growing up in rural Arkansas, I have come to accept the plethora of guns there are in the state. My dad and my brother are hunters and I have many friends who are hunters. I don’t own a gun myself, but I do respect the right others have to own guns; although I do think we ought to have strict gun laws. But despite how one feels about individuals owning guns, the bill that is now moving through the lawmaking body of Arkansas raises significant theological problems.
Several years ago, there was a trend among young Christians to ask this question, “What would Jesus do?” This question, shortened to WWJD, became a slogan that represented a way of asking about how we should behave in response to Jesus’ behavior. This is good theology, for the question centers on Jesus as the example we are to follow. So, here is another question related to what the lawmakers in Arkansas are considering, “Would Jesus carry a gun to church?”
I think most of us would certainly answer no to this question. But the issue over guns in church raises a larger question about our infatuation with violence that is directly contrary to Jesus’ message and life of non-violence.
There are two significant stories from the life of Jesus that I believe speak to this issue. Both stories derive from the arrest and trial of Jesus, a point at which, if he were to take up the weapon of violence, he certainly would have done so.
In Mark’s telling of the arrest of Jesus, those who come to seize him carry clubs and swords. Jesus’ question about their armaments is very telling and theologically rich for those of us who desire to utilize weapons for our own security and protection. He asks, “Have you come out with swords and clubs?” (Mark 14:48).
The implication of Jesus’ question to them is that he needs not the weapons of violence, for his protection and security is found with God. In other words, though he could have gathered a small army of rebels to fight, and indeed even a legion of angels, he rejected not only the use violence, but also the system that promotes violence.
This idea is made even clearer when Jesus is brought before Pilate, particularly in how the Gospel of John tells the story. In response to Pilate’s questioning about his being a king, Jesus responds, “My kingdom is not from this world” (John 18:36). While we take this to mean that Jesus was informing Pilate that his kingdom is from heaven, which is true, it more likely means that his kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world; kingdoms like Rome that hold imperial power through violence. Indeed, Jesus goes on to imply that if his kingdom was like Rome, then his followers would be fighting for him.
Both of these stories reflect Jesus’ radical ideas about the virtue of non-violence that epitomized his central message. At his arrest and his trial, events that would have triggered a violent reaction from most of us, Jesus rejected the use of weapons and he rejected the system of violence that characterized the society in which he lived. Instead, he placed his full trust in God’s loving care, despite the fact that he would be crucified in an act of state sponsored violence.
And this should cause us to rethink how we live in a world where violence is accepted as necessary. If we claim to be Christian, then this means we should at least seek to follow Christ. And, in following Jesus, we should at least pay close attention to what was central to his life and teachings: Non-violence. As followers of Christ, we must reject our attraction to violence, even when we think it will provide us security.
It seems likely that the bill being considered will pass. More than just bad policy, this decision is a hasty and tragic response to our need to feel safe everywhere we go. If the bill passes, however, I would hope that faithful Christians and faithful churches would reject the need to arm themselves, reject the attempt to create false security, and most importantly, reject violence and the system that promotes it as necessary.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Authentic Discipleship is Both Costly and Liberating
This past Wednesday, February 4, would have been Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s 103rd birthday. Bonhoeffer’s story is familiar to many; a story about his resistance to a Hitler controlled Germany and his participation in the plot to assassinate the Nazi leader. It was this public resistance and criticism that eventually led to Bonhoeffer’s execution on April 9, 1945, at the age of 39.
Yet, even though his story is familiar to many, it is his writings that still serve to penetrate our hearts and minds concerning what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Perhaps his most popular book is The Cost of Discipleship, a deep and challenging assessment of what it truly means to be a disciple of Christ.
It is in this book that we find the author state very powerfully that grace cannot be cheap. “Cheap grace is grace without discipleship.” Instead, Bonhoeffer coins an almost paradoxical phrase to describe the experience of salvation and discipleship: costly grace. In his words, costly grace is “costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”
In the Gospels, we find Jesus calling those who would become his followers. In the first chapter of Mark’s story, Jesus calls two sets of brothers, all of whom are fishermen. He calls them to leave their nets, to leave their families, and to follow him. In this story, and other call stories, we discover the tension that Bonhoeffer points out as that which epitomizes the gospel: Discipleship is both costly and liberating.
When Jesus comes upon these fishermen they are doing what they normally do on any given day; they are fishing. Indeed, this was their life; this was their existence. Fishing was what was routine and comfortable for them. While their occupation as fishermen was hard work that brought many challenges, it is what they knew and it is who they were.
Yet, when Jesus calls them, he calls them to leave their lives as they know them. He calls them to turn away from their normal existence and to let go of what they know best. How costly is such a decision?
While leaving fishing may not seem big to us, let’s take into account what Jesus demands from another. A rich man approached Jesus wanting to know how he might gain eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the greatest commandments; to love God and to love others. Jesus then told the man, “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor.” At this demand, the man turned away, refusing to accept the cost.
We must be careful not to distance ourselves too much from this story. In calling us to follow him, Jesus always demands that we relinquish our claims; our claims of independence, our claims to security and freedom, our claims to what we own, and our claims to live our lives as we see fit. To answer the call of discipleship is always costly. If it is not, it is not discipleship.
Yet, even as we speak of discipleship as costly, we must also view it as liberating. The call to the two sets of brothers to leave what they know, what gave them comfort and security, is at the same time a call to find liberation and hope in something that is transformative. While their lives of fishing certainly gave them a sense of normality, they were unknowingly missing what authentic life with God was like. Jesus’ call for them to leave their nets and follow him was a call to embrace a new liberating existence.
When Jesus calls us to follow, and when we respond to his call, we are responding to and accepting a way of life that is both costly and liberating. And only when we understand, accept, and welcome this tension, can we truly live out authentic discipleship that is, in the words of Bonhoeffer, “exclusive to his person.”
But to accept the call of Jesus to follow him, we must relinquish what holds us back from the true gospel and what prevents us from becoming authentic disciples of Jesus. We must count the cost of discipleship, and we must be willing to move from our status quo existence of comfort, security, and that which we know as normal, to embrace the life changing, world transforming, and liberating power of the gospel. This is authentic discipleship that is both costly and liberating.
Yet, even though his story is familiar to many, it is his writings that still serve to penetrate our hearts and minds concerning what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Perhaps his most popular book is The Cost of Discipleship, a deep and challenging assessment of what it truly means to be a disciple of Christ.
It is in this book that we find the author state very powerfully that grace cannot be cheap. “Cheap grace is grace without discipleship.” Instead, Bonhoeffer coins an almost paradoxical phrase to describe the experience of salvation and discipleship: costly grace. In his words, costly grace is “costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”
In the Gospels, we find Jesus calling those who would become his followers. In the first chapter of Mark’s story, Jesus calls two sets of brothers, all of whom are fishermen. He calls them to leave their nets, to leave their families, and to follow him. In this story, and other call stories, we discover the tension that Bonhoeffer points out as that which epitomizes the gospel: Discipleship is both costly and liberating.
When Jesus comes upon these fishermen they are doing what they normally do on any given day; they are fishing. Indeed, this was their life; this was their existence. Fishing was what was routine and comfortable for them. While their occupation as fishermen was hard work that brought many challenges, it is what they knew and it is who they were.
Yet, when Jesus calls them, he calls them to leave their lives as they know them. He calls them to turn away from their normal existence and to let go of what they know best. How costly is such a decision?
While leaving fishing may not seem big to us, let’s take into account what Jesus demands from another. A rich man approached Jesus wanting to know how he might gain eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the greatest commandments; to love God and to love others. Jesus then told the man, “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor.” At this demand, the man turned away, refusing to accept the cost.
We must be careful not to distance ourselves too much from this story. In calling us to follow him, Jesus always demands that we relinquish our claims; our claims of independence, our claims to security and freedom, our claims to what we own, and our claims to live our lives as we see fit. To answer the call of discipleship is always costly. If it is not, it is not discipleship.
Yet, even as we speak of discipleship as costly, we must also view it as liberating. The call to the two sets of brothers to leave what they know, what gave them comfort and security, is at the same time a call to find liberation and hope in something that is transformative. While their lives of fishing certainly gave them a sense of normality, they were unknowingly missing what authentic life with God was like. Jesus’ call for them to leave their nets and follow him was a call to embrace a new liberating existence.
When Jesus calls us to follow, and when we respond to his call, we are responding to and accepting a way of life that is both costly and liberating. And only when we understand, accept, and welcome this tension, can we truly live out authentic discipleship that is, in the words of Bonhoeffer, “exclusive to his person.”
But to accept the call of Jesus to follow him, we must relinquish what holds us back from the true gospel and what prevents us from becoming authentic disciples of Jesus. We must count the cost of discipleship, and we must be willing to move from our status quo existence of comfort, security, and that which we know as normal, to embrace the life changing, world transforming, and liberating power of the gospel. This is authentic discipleship that is both costly and liberating.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Inauguration of Barack Obama: Moving Out of Our Exile
When speaking about Israel’s Exile in Babylon, the prophets speak of it as a period of judgment in which the silence of God was deafening. During this tragic period, the remnant of God’s people struggled to find their identity and they fought to return to a sense of divine purpose. Yet, even in the midst of depression, Israel’s prophets spoke about a time of renewal and hope. Jeremiah captures this sentiment as he voices the promise of God, “I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow” (Jeremiah 31:13).
This past Tuesday, as I watched with many others the inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States, I recalled this period in Israel’s history and the hope about which the prophets spoke, even in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable obstacles. The somber and often depressing morale that has recently characterized our nation due to a greed induced financial crisis that weighs heavily on the poor and middle classes, the continuation of two seemingly endless wars, and the decline of America’s moral reputation on an international scale have gripped this nation much like the period of Exile tore at the Hebrew people. But as those people heard the promises of God through the voice of their prophets, I felt on Tuesday that we were perhaps hearing the voice of God after a period of divine silence.
To describe my thoughts in religious terms, I felt a great awareness of God’s presence. This is not to say that Barack Obama is a messiah figure, for the moment was greater than the man upon whom the day was focused; indeed it must be. Nor do I mean to imply that we are now becoming a “Christian” nation; indeed we cannot. But to use religious language to describe my thoughts on Tuesday, I felt that I was not witnessing so much the inauguration of a president, as I was participating in a revival meeting that was calling all of us to repentance, redemption and renewal.
I use the image of the Exile, for in my mind, although certainly not in the minds of others, the voice of God has been conspicuously missing in our leadership over the last eight years. This does not mean that religion or references to God have been missing, or that we must be religious to be moral. But I have sensed for quite some time that our government has failed to be the voice of justice, peace, and hope. Instead, the message of the last eight years has been one of arrogance, violence, and fear. While leaders can often throw the name of God around in order to give some divine credibility to their decisions and policies, this does not mean their words or their actions reflect the character of God.
The past eight years remind me very much of the words of another prophet, who spoke judgment upon the leaders of Israel because they had failed to lead as God had willed. Ezekiel declares God’s disgust for the leaders of Israel, rebuking them for not feeding the sheep. And in a strong statement of reproach God tells these shepherds, “You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them” (Ezekiel 34:4). Have not the actions of our recent leaders done the same?
Yet, the inauguration of a man whose race has historically been disenfranchised, ridiculed, and persecuted stands to symbolize a starting over. The inauguration was a moment of healing and transformation for our nation; a moment when we could all acknowledge as a collective people of diverse races, religious or non-religious, republicans or democrats, and all the differences that often divide us, that the time is now for moving out of the grips of prejudice and intolerance of all kinds, unfair economic policies that hold down the poor, and a foreign policy that is haphazard, provincial, and fueled by the power of fear rather than power of the common good.
As a person of faith, I heard the voice of God speak through the moments and the words of the inauguration, even to the end when Rev. Lowery voiced a benediction that served as a call to respond. For in the historic moments we all witnessed and shared on Tuesday, we were called to return to the moral center of what is right, good, and just for our nation, and indeed the world. We were called to look outside ourselves, embrace all others through love and service, work for justice and peace in our world, and face the challenges our recent Exile has brought upon us.
This past Tuesday, as I watched with many others the inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States, I recalled this period in Israel’s history and the hope about which the prophets spoke, even in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable obstacles. The somber and often depressing morale that has recently characterized our nation due to a greed induced financial crisis that weighs heavily on the poor and middle classes, the continuation of two seemingly endless wars, and the decline of America’s moral reputation on an international scale have gripped this nation much like the period of Exile tore at the Hebrew people. But as those people heard the promises of God through the voice of their prophets, I felt on Tuesday that we were perhaps hearing the voice of God after a period of divine silence.
To describe my thoughts in religious terms, I felt a great awareness of God’s presence. This is not to say that Barack Obama is a messiah figure, for the moment was greater than the man upon whom the day was focused; indeed it must be. Nor do I mean to imply that we are now becoming a “Christian” nation; indeed we cannot. But to use religious language to describe my thoughts on Tuesday, I felt that I was not witnessing so much the inauguration of a president, as I was participating in a revival meeting that was calling all of us to repentance, redemption and renewal.
I use the image of the Exile, for in my mind, although certainly not in the minds of others, the voice of God has been conspicuously missing in our leadership over the last eight years. This does not mean that religion or references to God have been missing, or that we must be religious to be moral. But I have sensed for quite some time that our government has failed to be the voice of justice, peace, and hope. Instead, the message of the last eight years has been one of arrogance, violence, and fear. While leaders can often throw the name of God around in order to give some divine credibility to their decisions and policies, this does not mean their words or their actions reflect the character of God.
The past eight years remind me very much of the words of another prophet, who spoke judgment upon the leaders of Israel because they had failed to lead as God had willed. Ezekiel declares God’s disgust for the leaders of Israel, rebuking them for not feeding the sheep. And in a strong statement of reproach God tells these shepherds, “You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them” (Ezekiel 34:4). Have not the actions of our recent leaders done the same?
Yet, the inauguration of a man whose race has historically been disenfranchised, ridiculed, and persecuted stands to symbolize a starting over. The inauguration was a moment of healing and transformation for our nation; a moment when we could all acknowledge as a collective people of diverse races, religious or non-religious, republicans or democrats, and all the differences that often divide us, that the time is now for moving out of the grips of prejudice and intolerance of all kinds, unfair economic policies that hold down the poor, and a foreign policy that is haphazard, provincial, and fueled by the power of fear rather than power of the common good.
As a person of faith, I heard the voice of God speak through the moments and the words of the inauguration, even to the end when Rev. Lowery voiced a benediction that served as a call to respond. For in the historic moments we all witnessed and shared on Tuesday, we were called to return to the moral center of what is right, good, and just for our nation, and indeed the world. We were called to look outside ourselves, embrace all others through love and service, work for justice and peace in our world, and face the challenges our recent Exile has brought upon us.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
How Satan Uses the Church
Since the time of earliest Christianity there has been a belief that the church is under attack from a figure we know as Satan. Probably extending from the stories of Jesus being tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, and perhaps as far back as the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Genesis narrative, this belief is found in other parts of the New Testament literature and is often referred to as spiritual warfare. While we must take the existence of evil seriously, I often wonder if the church is only the target of Satan’s attacks, or whether the church is more often a participant in the wiles of the figure we call the Devil.
I have to admit that I am not one who necessarily believes in a mythical figure known as Satan. I more readily accept that this is a personification given by the ancients to what they perceived as the struggle to choose between doing good and doing evil. I am definitely not denying the existence of evil, and I am not setting out to disprove the reality of Satan, but I have trouble with using a mythical figure as a scapegoat for the evil and sin we choose to do as humans, as if we can say, in the words of the comedian Flip Wilson, “the Devil made me do it.”
But let me put aside my own beliefs about the non existence of Satan and presume that the Devil is real. In doing so, I want to return to the question about what Satan may be up to in relation to the church. The traditional and popular understanding of the actions of Satan suggests that the Devil attacks the church whenever the church seeks to do what God wants her to do. I most certainly don’t disagree with this belief, but I do believe that if we limit our understanding only to this, then we may be deceived into thinking that the church is only the enemy of Satan and not, as may be the case, an unwitting ally of the Devil.
It is the popular understanding about Satan and his actions that we find mostly in conservative churches that pride themselves on so-called correct theology and Bible believing faith. Yet, so-called correct theology and Bible believing faith can be deceptive, if Satan or our own ignorance and prejudices cloud our understanding of the message of the scriptures.
There are, in my view, some significant lies that Satan has fed the church that the so-called Bible believing church often does not recognize. While this is not an exhaustive list, it is certainly one that should be brought to the forefront if we want to have any honest conversations about the deceptive tactics of the figure we refer to as the Devil.
The first lie is one that suggests that inequality is biblical. While many churches would not admit to practicing inequality, when we prevent certain people from holding leadership roles in the church because of gender, marital status, race, or other form of social classification, then we practice inequality. To say that a female cannot be a pastor, minister, or deacon, is to practice inequality. To say that a divorced person cannot take on a church leadership position is inequality. And to prevent a person of a different race from leadership, whether intentional or not, is to practice inequality. But the gospel is about equality and the tearing down of barriers that divide humanity.
The second lie follows from the first. Exclusion grows out of our practice of inequality. We see the other as not only different, but also as unequal to us, and thus we exclude them. Whether we exclude people based on their race, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or theological beliefs, exclusion is a sin and is one of the great lies Satan has told the church. But the gospel is inclusive, open to all who believe and choose to follow Jesus.
Finally there is the lie of ignorance. It becomes easier for the church to practice inequality and exclusion when we remain ignorant and resort to statements like, “the Bible says it, so that settles it.” While as followers of Christ we must take seriously the message Christ preaches and exemplifies, and we should work to become more biblically literate, if we read the stories of violence, prejudice, and exclusion that we find in some of the biblical material with a view toward making them theologically and ethically relevant for the church today, then we have bought into one of Satan’s biggest lies. Holding onto ignorance cloaked in religious truth only feeds the prejudices that lead to our seeing people as unequal and results in our excluding them. This process is completely contrary to the gospel Jesus preached, lived, and ultimately died to fulfill.
While we play victim to an attacker we call Satan, the real deceit we practice is in not admitting that we are very often participants in the evil promulgated by the Devil. History shows that the church has committed its own share of evil in the world. And, in very subtle ways, masked by a perception of truth, the Devil continues to entrap the church in his snare and to use the witness of the church to prevent people from believing in a God who shows no partiality, who is inclusive, and who welcomes all into the full participation of the church.
I have to admit that I am not one who necessarily believes in a mythical figure known as Satan. I more readily accept that this is a personification given by the ancients to what they perceived as the struggle to choose between doing good and doing evil. I am definitely not denying the existence of evil, and I am not setting out to disprove the reality of Satan, but I have trouble with using a mythical figure as a scapegoat for the evil and sin we choose to do as humans, as if we can say, in the words of the comedian Flip Wilson, “the Devil made me do it.”
But let me put aside my own beliefs about the non existence of Satan and presume that the Devil is real. In doing so, I want to return to the question about what Satan may be up to in relation to the church. The traditional and popular understanding of the actions of Satan suggests that the Devil attacks the church whenever the church seeks to do what God wants her to do. I most certainly don’t disagree with this belief, but I do believe that if we limit our understanding only to this, then we may be deceived into thinking that the church is only the enemy of Satan and not, as may be the case, an unwitting ally of the Devil.
It is the popular understanding about Satan and his actions that we find mostly in conservative churches that pride themselves on so-called correct theology and Bible believing faith. Yet, so-called correct theology and Bible believing faith can be deceptive, if Satan or our own ignorance and prejudices cloud our understanding of the message of the scriptures.
There are, in my view, some significant lies that Satan has fed the church that the so-called Bible believing church often does not recognize. While this is not an exhaustive list, it is certainly one that should be brought to the forefront if we want to have any honest conversations about the deceptive tactics of the figure we refer to as the Devil.
The first lie is one that suggests that inequality is biblical. While many churches would not admit to practicing inequality, when we prevent certain people from holding leadership roles in the church because of gender, marital status, race, or other form of social classification, then we practice inequality. To say that a female cannot be a pastor, minister, or deacon, is to practice inequality. To say that a divorced person cannot take on a church leadership position is inequality. And to prevent a person of a different race from leadership, whether intentional or not, is to practice inequality. But the gospel is about equality and the tearing down of barriers that divide humanity.
The second lie follows from the first. Exclusion grows out of our practice of inequality. We see the other as not only different, but also as unequal to us, and thus we exclude them. Whether we exclude people based on their race, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or theological beliefs, exclusion is a sin and is one of the great lies Satan has told the church. But the gospel is inclusive, open to all who believe and choose to follow Jesus.
Finally there is the lie of ignorance. It becomes easier for the church to practice inequality and exclusion when we remain ignorant and resort to statements like, “the Bible says it, so that settles it.” While as followers of Christ we must take seriously the message Christ preaches and exemplifies, and we should work to become more biblically literate, if we read the stories of violence, prejudice, and exclusion that we find in some of the biblical material with a view toward making them theologically and ethically relevant for the church today, then we have bought into one of Satan’s biggest lies. Holding onto ignorance cloaked in religious truth only feeds the prejudices that lead to our seeing people as unequal and results in our excluding them. This process is completely contrary to the gospel Jesus preached, lived, and ultimately died to fulfill.
While we play victim to an attacker we call Satan, the real deceit we practice is in not admitting that we are very often participants in the evil promulgated by the Devil. History shows that the church has committed its own share of evil in the world. And, in very subtle ways, masked by a perception of truth, the Devil continues to entrap the church in his snare and to use the witness of the church to prevent people from believing in a God who shows no partiality, who is inclusive, and who welcomes all into the full participation of the church.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
What does the Lord Require for 2009?
I have never been one to make serious resolutions for each New Year. Moreover, since 2009 is now a week old, I would probably be considered a little late in making any resolutions at this point. I am not opposed to making such resolutions, and I am certainly not cynical about those who make them and seriously try to keep them; I have just never really felt the need to make them.
Yet, as we begin the New Year, I have been considering what I want 2009 to be for me. For sure, I have personal goals like spending more time with my family, getting and staying in shape, and being a better person. Moreover, I have professional goals to be better at my job and to improve my professional skills. But as 2008 was coming to a close and 2009 was in its first hours of life, I began to think about what God really wants from me in 2009.
God’s will can be very difficult to understand, but more difficult to execute in my life. Understanding God’s will for me in 2009 can be tricky for the simple reason that my primary resource for knowing the will of God is the Bible and the life of Jesus. The year 2009 is a long way away from the ancient world in which the Bible was written and in which Jesus lived. Yet, it is vitally important that I start with these resources in order to understand and live out God’s will for my life.
But the problem is more than just simply the distance in time between the biblical world and my own life. The problem also comes in understanding what the Bible wants to say to me and what parts of the Bible might say these things more clearly. Thus, seeking the will of God for 2009 requires reading scripture, reflecting on what scripture says, and using spiritual discernment and sound reason to find the direction God desires for my life in the New Year.
But is it necessary that I make this task so difficult? Yes, biblical interpretation is often difficult and gut-wrenching work if we are seeking to be serious with the text and serious about what the text says. Despite what we hear from some preachers and teachers of the Bible who spout off nothing but watered down theology that only skims the surface of the biblical texts and the life of Jesus, the Bible is not always clear and not always correct for our context. Moreover, spiritualizing portions of the Bible just because we think that every part of scripture must mean something for us now is not the answer. But finding God’s will for us can often be made even more difficult when we cannot see the forest because of the trees.
I am certainly not one to say that we ought not to consider the intricacies of scripture and what scripture says on issues with which we deal; but I am saying that we can face many questions we have in life and never find specific and crystal clear answers from these ancient and distance texts. However, I do think we can find God’s will for all of us in the overall message of scripture that is summed up in various ways, but two that are pertinent for me.
Micah 6:6 from the Hebrew Bible offers us the following, “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.” And Jesus stated that the law is summed up in this, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and everything that you are, and love your neighbor as you would love yourself.” These seem to me to be codes with which to live for a couple of important reasons.
First, each recognizes that life exists in relation to God and others. We are not alone and despite our tendency to be independent, the fullness of life can only be encountered in relationships with God and others that are based on love. Second, both call us to action on the part of others. To do justice, to love mercy, and to love others as we would want to be loved means to live our lives not in selfish gain, but in self giving sacrifice.
If I consider these verses and others like them to be the center piece of the biblical message, then these should become for me the moral and spiritual compass by which my life is guided. And if these words are the moral and spiritual compass of my life, then they must become the basis from which I formulate resolutions, not only for a New Year, but for each new day.
So, while I have never been keen about the whole New Year’s resolution tradition, I hope that I am serious about living my life the way God intends. I hope that my life for 2009 is focused on loving God and loving others by doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.
Yet, as we begin the New Year, I have been considering what I want 2009 to be for me. For sure, I have personal goals like spending more time with my family, getting and staying in shape, and being a better person. Moreover, I have professional goals to be better at my job and to improve my professional skills. But as 2008 was coming to a close and 2009 was in its first hours of life, I began to think about what God really wants from me in 2009.
God’s will can be very difficult to understand, but more difficult to execute in my life. Understanding God’s will for me in 2009 can be tricky for the simple reason that my primary resource for knowing the will of God is the Bible and the life of Jesus. The year 2009 is a long way away from the ancient world in which the Bible was written and in which Jesus lived. Yet, it is vitally important that I start with these resources in order to understand and live out God’s will for my life.
But the problem is more than just simply the distance in time between the biblical world and my own life. The problem also comes in understanding what the Bible wants to say to me and what parts of the Bible might say these things more clearly. Thus, seeking the will of God for 2009 requires reading scripture, reflecting on what scripture says, and using spiritual discernment and sound reason to find the direction God desires for my life in the New Year.
But is it necessary that I make this task so difficult? Yes, biblical interpretation is often difficult and gut-wrenching work if we are seeking to be serious with the text and serious about what the text says. Despite what we hear from some preachers and teachers of the Bible who spout off nothing but watered down theology that only skims the surface of the biblical texts and the life of Jesus, the Bible is not always clear and not always correct for our context. Moreover, spiritualizing portions of the Bible just because we think that every part of scripture must mean something for us now is not the answer. But finding God’s will for us can often be made even more difficult when we cannot see the forest because of the trees.
I am certainly not one to say that we ought not to consider the intricacies of scripture and what scripture says on issues with which we deal; but I am saying that we can face many questions we have in life and never find specific and crystal clear answers from these ancient and distance texts. However, I do think we can find God’s will for all of us in the overall message of scripture that is summed up in various ways, but two that are pertinent for me.
Micah 6:6 from the Hebrew Bible offers us the following, “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.” And Jesus stated that the law is summed up in this, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and everything that you are, and love your neighbor as you would love yourself.” These seem to me to be codes with which to live for a couple of important reasons.
First, each recognizes that life exists in relation to God and others. We are not alone and despite our tendency to be independent, the fullness of life can only be encountered in relationships with God and others that are based on love. Second, both call us to action on the part of others. To do justice, to love mercy, and to love others as we would want to be loved means to live our lives not in selfish gain, but in self giving sacrifice.
If I consider these verses and others like them to be the center piece of the biblical message, then these should become for me the moral and spiritual compass by which my life is guided. And if these words are the moral and spiritual compass of my life, then they must become the basis from which I formulate resolutions, not only for a New Year, but for each new day.
So, while I have never been keen about the whole New Year’s resolution tradition, I hope that I am serious about living my life the way God intends. I hope that my life for 2009 is focused on loving God and loving others by doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)