I spent years of my life being one of the biggest jerks you could ever meet. I had a talent for, within minutes of meeting someone, finding a weakness or soft spot that I might exploit if I ever needed to put that person in their place or enhance my own status in their company. I was known for my sense of humor, though really my sense was all off, my humor was biting and mean-spirited and those that laughed either laughed out of their own meanness or with a nervousness that tried not to be too conspicuous.
And all I wanted to be when I got older was a preacher. I thought of myself as one of the "good ones" and thought I'd take pretty well to spending Sundays reminding people just how far they'd fallen. I imagined myself a fiery prophet, eager to "drop the hammer" at any and every opportunity.
In college, this aspect of my personality cooled off somewhat, but certainly didn't fade away. I learned that overt meanness wasn't as acceptable and some amount of tact was called for. Still, I held fast to my "holier than thou" attitude and voiced my opinion strongly, whether it was asked for or not.
And then the bottom fell out. It didn't happen on any given day or week, but I began to look in the mirror and get sick of myself. Sick of the cynicism and anger and self-righteousness. Along with that I became sick of the church and even sick of God.
I stopped going to church, even as I continued to pursue my theology degree. I was "fortunate" enough to be a part of a church that was large enough not to notice my absence. I was gone for almost a year. I was looking at changing my degree. I wasn't sure I still had faith.
And then, slowly but surely, God begin stripping away my cynicism and anger and self-righteousness. Christ began to destroy the old me and to bring a new one to life. Jesus, who had claimed me at the age of 13, wasn't letting me go without a fight.
And I eventually gave in. Gave in and was willing to become whoever it was that Christ needed me to be.
In the last chapter of the gospel of John, Jesus shares breakfast with his disciples, the same disciples who fled when he was arrested and crucified. As they eat together, he addresses Peter, the disciple who denied knowing Jesus on the very day that Jesus died.
Jesus has a question for Peter. "Peter, do you love me?"
Peter answers that he does and Jesus responds by saying, "Feed my sheep."
Jesus asks the question three times, Peter responds in kind three times, and three times Jesus comissions Peter to care for Jesus' sheep. To care for all people, who were created to be followers of Jesus, created for relationship with The Good Shepherd. Christ calls Peter to serve as a sort of assistant shepherd, and to care for the sheep.
The word we use for this nowadays is pastor. A pastor is someone who is called to love those who still need to know Jesus and to tend to those who already do. To nurture and care for all people, since all people were created to be followers of Christ.
I never wanted to be a pastor. I wanted to be a preacher. But when Christ became my Savior, he also became my Lord. When he called me to follow him, he comissioned me to feed his sheep. He commanded me to love people and hurt with people and listen to people and share with people. To try and offer them direction and keep them on track.
It wasn't a job I ever wanted, but it's one I thank him for. It's not a job I'm at all qualified to do, except for his working in me.
In the movie Pulp Fiction, Jules Winnfield is a mob hitman who experiences a moment of divine intervention in his life. The moment causes him to reflect on his life and his work and on a passage he always quotes from Ezekiel 25:17. In the final moments of the film, Jules shares his thoughts with a two bit crook who has just attempted to rob Jules and whose life Jules has decided to spare.
"Now I'm thinking it could mean you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here is the shepherd, protecting me. Or maybe it means that you're the righteous man, and I'm the shepherd, and it's the world that's evil and selfish. Now I'd like that, but you see, that ain't the truth. The truth is, you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, I'm trying real hard, to be the shepherd."
On any given day any one of us risks being the tyranny of evil men. The line between good and evil is drawn right down the center of the human heart. But in Christ we are called and through Christ we are empowered to show love, to offer help, to give direction, to provide protection to any and everyone we come into contact with. It isn't in us to be the shepherd, and so we must be in him.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Reading and Reading...and Reading
I have had the goal of reading The Modern Library's Top 100 Novels List since the list was first compiled, but always seem to get distracted from it. So, I'm going to use the "Reading" section of my "Reading and Listening" updates to attempt to rectify this. The goal will be to always include one of the hundred on my reading list at any given time. Of course, there are some that I have already read, so this shouldn't take as long as it might otherwise. I'd love to finish it before this time next year (no promises). So, books to be looking for on my weekly "Reading" updates:
1. ULYSSES by James Joyce
3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
9. SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence
12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
22. APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O'Hara
23. U.S.A. (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
24. WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson
25. A PASSAGE TO INDIA by E.M. Forster
26. THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
27. THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
28. TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald
29. THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
30. THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
32. THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
33. SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser
34. A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
38. HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster
39. GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
42. DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
43. A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
44. POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
46. THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
47. NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
48. THE RAINBOW by D.H. Lawrence
49. WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence
50. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
51. THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
53. PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
54. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
57. PARADE'S END by Ford Madox Ford
58. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
59. ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
62. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
63. THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
65. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
67. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
68. MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
69. THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
70. THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
71. A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
72. A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by V.S. Naipaul
75. SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
76. THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
77. FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce
78. KIM by Rudyard Kipling
79. A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster
80. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
82. ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
83. A BEND IN THE RIVER by V.S. Naipaul
84. THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
85. LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad
86. RAGTIME by E.L. Doctorow
87. THE OLD WIVES' TALE by Arnold Bennett
89. LOVING by Henry Green
90. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
91. TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell
92. IRONWEED by William Kennedy
93. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
94. WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
95. UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
96. SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron
97. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
98. THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
99. THE GINGER MAN by J.P. Donleavy
100. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington
1. ULYSSES by James Joyce
3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
9. SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence
12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
22. APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O'Hara
23. U.S.A. (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
24. WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson
25. A PASSAGE TO INDIA by E.M. Forster
26. THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
27. THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
28. TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald
29. THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
30. THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
32. THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
33. SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser
34. A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
38. HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster
39. GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
42. DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
43. A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
44. POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
46. THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
47. NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
48. THE RAINBOW by D.H. Lawrence
49. WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence
50. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
51. THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
53. PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
54. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner
57. PARADE'S END by Ford Madox Ford
58. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
59. ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
62. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
63. THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
65. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
67. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
68. MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
69. THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
70. THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
71. A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
72. A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by V.S. Naipaul
75. SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
76. THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
77. FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce
78. KIM by Rudyard Kipling
79. A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster
80. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
82. ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
83. A BEND IN THE RIVER by V.S. Naipaul
84. THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
85. LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad
86. RAGTIME by E.L. Doctorow
87. THE OLD WIVES' TALE by Arnold Bennett
89. LOVING by Henry Green
90. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
91. TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell
92. IRONWEED by William Kennedy
93. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
94. WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
95. UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
96. SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron
97. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
98. THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
99. THE GINGER MAN by J.P. Donleavy
100. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Reading and Listening
Reading...
The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano. An excellent and very long book. Some will find it worth it (I did), but many will not. The story that moves so well in sections 1 and 3 meanders in section 2. However, the meandering nature of section 2 is intentional. The section is set up as a series of interviews with an endless cast of characters, some of whom can spin a yarn and others who seem to be talking just to hear themselves talk. Bolano can write sentences that take up half a page. Sometimes it's brilliant, other times endless. I thought the book was great, but could have been edited from its almost 600 pages down to about 400.
The Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall. Wow. The setup sounds like a Memento ripoff (man wakes up to discover his memory is gone, but notes have been left by himself in order to help guide him), but that's where the plot similarities end. This book is like an amazing mix of Nick Hornby and Murakami (heavy on the Murakami). Neil Gaiman, but better. A sort of "regular bloke" 1st person voice in the most fantastic of magical realism circumstances. Check it out.
Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor. I cannot count how many times I have read this novel. In my top 5 novels of the 20th Century. O'Connor writes the freaks of the "Christ haunted South" in a way that few others could and no others did. I recommend anything by O'Connor, but Wise Blood is my favorite.
Listening to...
Halos and Lassos by Half-Handed Cloud. Mates of State meets Tilly and the Wall meets Sufjan Stevens. Everything you'd expect from a band on the Asthmatic Kitty label (Danielson, Sufjan, etc.) and more. Psalms for the 21st Century.
Woke On A Whaleheart by Bill Callahan. Not as good as the best Smog stuff, but better than a lot of it. A natural follow up to A River Ain't Too Much To Love.
The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano. An excellent and very long book. Some will find it worth it (I did), but many will not. The story that moves so well in sections 1 and 3 meanders in section 2. However, the meandering nature of section 2 is intentional. The section is set up as a series of interviews with an endless cast of characters, some of whom can spin a yarn and others who seem to be talking just to hear themselves talk. Bolano can write sentences that take up half a page. Sometimes it's brilliant, other times endless. I thought the book was great, but could have been edited from its almost 600 pages down to about 400.
The Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall. Wow. The setup sounds like a Memento ripoff (man wakes up to discover his memory is gone, but notes have been left by himself in order to help guide him), but that's where the plot similarities end. This book is like an amazing mix of Nick Hornby and Murakami (heavy on the Murakami). Neil Gaiman, but better. A sort of "regular bloke" 1st person voice in the most fantastic of magical realism circumstances. Check it out.
Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor. I cannot count how many times I have read this novel. In my top 5 novels of the 20th Century. O'Connor writes the freaks of the "Christ haunted South" in a way that few others could and no others did. I recommend anything by O'Connor, but Wise Blood is my favorite.
Listening to...
Halos and Lassos by Half-Handed Cloud. Mates of State meets Tilly and the Wall meets Sufjan Stevens. Everything you'd expect from a band on the Asthmatic Kitty label (Danielson, Sufjan, etc.) and more. Psalms for the 21st Century.
Woke On A Whaleheart by Bill Callahan. Not as good as the best Smog stuff, but better than a lot of it. A natural follow up to A River Ain't Too Much To Love.
Monday, April 23, 2007
I Want To Praise You Like I Should
Just around 7 years ago, I was having one of the worst years of my life.
10 months previous, things were going fine. I'd been married just over a year, Rachel was beginning graduate school, and I was working for my alma mater.
Now I was out of work, we were barely paying the rent let alone keeping Rachel in grad school, and it was starting to look like my marriage might be falling apart before it even really got started.
People have certainly found themselves in worse circumstances, but my hopelessness and depression were overwhelming me. On top of that (because of that?) I was feeling as far from God as I possibly ever had. I looked around and couldn't see anything to be thankful for.
Willie Nelson has a song called "Too Sick To Pray", and, that year, his sentiments were my own.
Then one day changed everything. My circumstances didn't change, but everything else did. I woke up, spent the morning applying for jobs, came back to the apartment for lunch, and fell on the couch in a funk.
But that day the Holy Spirit started working on me. It started as a sort of Job-like tirade, I stood up in the middle of my living room and began to challenge God, to question Him, and then to shout at Him. I don't know if I literally shook my fist, but that would certainly have captured the essence of the experience.
And then, in the midst of it, I began to realize just who it was I was shouting at. Someone much bigger and better than I could ever be. I began to realize that a posture of penitence might be more appropriate than one of defiance.
Almost against my will, my legs began to give out and I was face down on the floor. And it was there that I started to speak these words:
Oh God, you are my God
And I will ever praise you
Oh God, you are my God
And I will ever praise you
I will seek you in the morning
And I will learn to walk in your ways
And step by step you'll lead me
And I will follow you all of my days
I kept repeating this chorus. What began as an angry and defiant shout turned into singing and then into sobbing.
And I learned something that day. That praise and thanksgiving are not the same. They are certainly connected, but not the same. Thanksgiving is what it sounds like, giving thanks for the things in your life that you are thankful for.
Praise is different. It is an acknowledgment of God in spite of circumstance. That God is God and God is good. That I will praise God even when I can't think of anything to thank Him for. That the time that I most need to praise is when I'm too sick to pray.
That day was a turnaround for me, not just for that day or that year, but for my life as a whole. I began to place my life in His hands in an entirely different way. I began to make a regular practice of adopting the posture of praise regardless of circumstance. Because, regardless of the circumstances, God is God and God is good.
10 months previous, things were going fine. I'd been married just over a year, Rachel was beginning graduate school, and I was working for my alma mater.
Now I was out of work, we were barely paying the rent let alone keeping Rachel in grad school, and it was starting to look like my marriage might be falling apart before it even really got started.
People have certainly found themselves in worse circumstances, but my hopelessness and depression were overwhelming me. On top of that (because of that?) I was feeling as far from God as I possibly ever had. I looked around and couldn't see anything to be thankful for.
Willie Nelson has a song called "Too Sick To Pray", and, that year, his sentiments were my own.
Then one day changed everything. My circumstances didn't change, but everything else did. I woke up, spent the morning applying for jobs, came back to the apartment for lunch, and fell on the couch in a funk.
But that day the Holy Spirit started working on me. It started as a sort of Job-like tirade, I stood up in the middle of my living room and began to challenge God, to question Him, and then to shout at Him. I don't know if I literally shook my fist, but that would certainly have captured the essence of the experience.
And then, in the midst of it, I began to realize just who it was I was shouting at. Someone much bigger and better than I could ever be. I began to realize that a posture of penitence might be more appropriate than one of defiance.
Almost against my will, my legs began to give out and I was face down on the floor. And it was there that I started to speak these words:
Oh God, you are my God
And I will ever praise you
Oh God, you are my God
And I will ever praise you
I will seek you in the morning
And I will learn to walk in your ways
And step by step you'll lead me
And I will follow you all of my days
I kept repeating this chorus. What began as an angry and defiant shout turned into singing and then into sobbing.
And I learned something that day. That praise and thanksgiving are not the same. They are certainly connected, but not the same. Thanksgiving is what it sounds like, giving thanks for the things in your life that you are thankful for.
Praise is different. It is an acknowledgment of God in spite of circumstance. That God is God and God is good. That I will praise God even when I can't think of anything to thank Him for. That the time that I most need to praise is when I'm too sick to pray.
That day was a turnaround for me, not just for that day or that year, but for my life as a whole. I began to place my life in His hands in an entirely different way. I began to make a regular practice of adopting the posture of praise regardless of circumstance. Because, regardless of the circumstances, God is God and God is good.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Reading and Listening
Reading...
Absurdistan by Gary Shteyngart. One of the New York Times Book Review's Top 10 Books of 2006. Just out in paperback. Funny and sad and shocking and sweaty. Absurdistan's anti-hero is like A Confederacy of Dunces' Ignatius J. Reilly with Russian sensibilities. Excellent.
The Day of the Locust by Nathanael West. Awhile back I was reading West's Miss Lonelyhearts and recommended it heartily. This one even more so. For fans of Waugh or Fitzgerald.
The Dead Fish Museum by Charles D'Ambrosio. Have worked through about 2/3 of the short stories in this collection and haven't found one I didn't love. Stands up against any of the great short story writers of the 20th century.
Tepper Isn't Going Out by Calvin Trillin. This book makes me wish I had lived in New York, because it has very much the insider critique. Still, the themes are universal, the characters charming, and the story excellent.
Listening to...
Rock Plaza Central. Previously recommended. Can't recommend them enough. Everything you love about Neutral Milk Hotel, Will Oldham, Of Montreal, etc.
Bright Eyes. This new albumcmay be my favorite. Hard to say.
Michael Penn's greatest hits collection. Remember this late 90's favorite? Remember what a singable song No Myth was? Either way, check him out. For fans of Jon Brion, Aimee Mann, and George Harrison.
Absurdistan by Gary Shteyngart. One of the New York Times Book Review's Top 10 Books of 2006. Just out in paperback. Funny and sad and shocking and sweaty. Absurdistan's anti-hero is like A Confederacy of Dunces' Ignatius J. Reilly with Russian sensibilities. Excellent.
The Day of the Locust by Nathanael West. Awhile back I was reading West's Miss Lonelyhearts and recommended it heartily. This one even more so. For fans of Waugh or Fitzgerald.
The Dead Fish Museum by Charles D'Ambrosio. Have worked through about 2/3 of the short stories in this collection and haven't found one I didn't love. Stands up against any of the great short story writers of the 20th century.
Tepper Isn't Going Out by Calvin Trillin. This book makes me wish I had lived in New York, because it has very much the insider critique. Still, the themes are universal, the characters charming, and the story excellent.
Listening to...
Rock Plaza Central. Previously recommended. Can't recommend them enough. Everything you love about Neutral Milk Hotel, Will Oldham, Of Montreal, etc.
Bright Eyes. This new albumcmay be my favorite. Hard to say.
Michael Penn's greatest hits collection. Remember this late 90's favorite? Remember what a singable song No Myth was? Either way, check him out. For fans of Jon Brion, Aimee Mann, and George Harrison.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Doubt
I have a co-worker and friend who is a former Christian and now atheist. From time to time we will engage in conversations on life/faith/etc. and I always enjoy his insights. One day he walked up to me out of the blue and said, "I'll tell you one thing I miss about Christianity...I miss the certainty."
Last week we gathered together to celebrate our certainty of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We declared with those first followers of Jesus "it's true! He's risen!"
But following quickly on the heels of Christ's resurrection, we have the story of Thomas. Thomas, who has yet to see Jesus risen from the dead. Thomas who says, "I'll believe it when I see it" and goes so far as to demand proof.
When Jesus appears to Thomas, he doesn't shame Thomas, but simply offers Thomas his wounded hands as proof of his resurrection. Thomas proclaims "My Lord and my God!"
And Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see, but still believe."
It can be difficult to be one of those who do not see. Thomas is sometimes called the Twin, and he is certainly mine. I want to see. I want to touch the wounded hands. I want proof.
The recently released documentary "Jesus Camp" (a disturbing look at an evangelical Christian camp for 7-12 year olds) features a scene in which an 8 year old boy participates in a time of confession of "sin". I place sin in quotes, not because I don't believe in sin or the need to confess it, but because of what is deemed "sin" in this film.
The boy cries as he confesses his doubt. The adults that surround him allow him to squirm in his shame, simply for having moments when he isn't sure.
Jesus certainly doesn't shame us in those moments. When a father with a dying child cries out to Jesus "I believe, help my unbelief," Jesus marks it as an act of faith.
Bruce Springsteen once wrote the line "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of."
And God does.
Because our relationship with God is, in many ways, like many of our deepest relationships. Look at marriage as an example. No matter how confident you are in the relationship, you have those moments of doubt and uncertainty. The faithful thing is not to deny the doubt is there, but to address it together and move forward together.
Faith isn't always about certainty, it can be about moving forward in the face of uncertainty.
C.S. Lewis once wrote that “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.”
When a husband and wife come up against doubt, their act of faithfulness is to struggle through it together and not to abandon their promises because of changes in mood.
The same goes for our relationship to God.
So we test and prod and probe. Eventually we believe. And sometimes we still doubt. But move forward in faith.
This is why the church is so important. It is a place for us to live out this journey together, to be called to faith and to wrestle together with our questions and our doubt. To affirm the things we believe in those moments of unbelief.
One of the reasons I love to say the creed is that it is worded as a list of "we believe" statements. If they were "I believe" statements, there would be days when my mood would keep me from speaking. But even on the days when I don't believe, I can affirm that we do. And we're in this together.
The declaration itself is an act of faith, knowing that I will believe again.
One of the things we do is make room for doubt in the midst of belief, not a constant playing of devil’s advocate, but a faithful questioning. The prayer that says “I believe, help my unbelief.”
The story goes that the wise man builds his house upon the rock. The rock that is Jesus Christ. So that even in those moments of doubt, even when our footing seems unsure, our foundation is firm.
Last week we gathered together to celebrate our certainty of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We declared with those first followers of Jesus "it's true! He's risen!"
But following quickly on the heels of Christ's resurrection, we have the story of Thomas. Thomas, who has yet to see Jesus risen from the dead. Thomas who says, "I'll believe it when I see it" and goes so far as to demand proof.
When Jesus appears to Thomas, he doesn't shame Thomas, but simply offers Thomas his wounded hands as proof of his resurrection. Thomas proclaims "My Lord and my God!"
And Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see, but still believe."
It can be difficult to be one of those who do not see. Thomas is sometimes called the Twin, and he is certainly mine. I want to see. I want to touch the wounded hands. I want proof.
The recently released documentary "Jesus Camp" (a disturbing look at an evangelical Christian camp for 7-12 year olds) features a scene in which an 8 year old boy participates in a time of confession of "sin". I place sin in quotes, not because I don't believe in sin or the need to confess it, but because of what is deemed "sin" in this film.
The boy cries as he confesses his doubt. The adults that surround him allow him to squirm in his shame, simply for having moments when he isn't sure.
Jesus certainly doesn't shame us in those moments. When a father with a dying child cries out to Jesus "I believe, help my unbelief," Jesus marks it as an act of faith.
Bruce Springsteen once wrote the line "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of."
And God does.
Because our relationship with God is, in many ways, like many of our deepest relationships. Look at marriage as an example. No matter how confident you are in the relationship, you have those moments of doubt and uncertainty. The faithful thing is not to deny the doubt is there, but to address it together and move forward together.
Faith isn't always about certainty, it can be about moving forward in the face of uncertainty.
C.S. Lewis once wrote that “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.”
When a husband and wife come up against doubt, their act of faithfulness is to struggle through it together and not to abandon their promises because of changes in mood.
The same goes for our relationship to God.
So we test and prod and probe. Eventually we believe. And sometimes we still doubt. But move forward in faith.
This is why the church is so important. It is a place for us to live out this journey together, to be called to faith and to wrestle together with our questions and our doubt. To affirm the things we believe in those moments of unbelief.
One of the reasons I love to say the creed is that it is worded as a list of "we believe" statements. If they were "I believe" statements, there would be days when my mood would keep me from speaking. But even on the days when I don't believe, I can affirm that we do. And we're in this together.
The declaration itself is an act of faith, knowing that I will believe again.
One of the things we do is make room for doubt in the midst of belief, not a constant playing of devil’s advocate, but a faithful questioning. The prayer that says “I believe, help my unbelief.”
The story goes that the wise man builds his house upon the rock. The rock that is Jesus Christ. So that even in those moments of doubt, even when our footing seems unsure, our foundation is firm.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Wisdom from Bill Callahan and the Rare Christian T-shirt
Bill Callahan's new album has a great line that says "I could tell you about the river, or we could just get in."
As Christians, we have got to do a better job of moving from talking about the river to just inviting people in.
Also, I saw a t-shirt that said "Jesus is more than my homeboy". It's about freaking time.
As Christians, we have got to do a better job of moving from talking about the river to just inviting people in.
Also, I saw a t-shirt that said "Jesus is more than my homeboy". It's about freaking time.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Reading and Listening
On a break from Decoding the Universe. I'm coming back to it, I promise.
Exiles is still excellent. As is Doug Hall.
The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Incredible. Michael Chabon's best. I cannot wait until this comes out and I can start recommending it to people.
Judas Unchained ended strong. Good stuff. Read Pandora's Star first.
Gilead is better the second time around than it was the first. Spectacular.
The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano. This book is great. Think Borges meets Marquez meets Cervantes meets Kerouac.
The Dead Fish Museum by Charles D'Ambrosio. Short story collection on par with Raymond Carver and Andre Dubus.
Listening to the new Bright Eyes and loving it.
Listening to Shaky Hands eponymous debut. Sonically, very Bright Eyes. More fun. More mature.
Listening to Rock Plaza Central. Think Neutral Milk Hotel. Think Will Oldham. Think greatness.
Listening to Tommy James and the Shondells. Hanky Panky. Mony Mony. Crimson and Clover. Crystal Blue Persuasion. Draggin' The Line. You loved this band already and didn't even know it.
Listening to Bruce Springsteen's Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ. My favorite of this type of Bruce album. There is the joyous/victorious/youthful album (Greetings/The Wild, The Innocent...), the working man trying to make it album (The River/Born In The USA), the "we gotta get out of this place" album (Born to Run/Darkness On The Edge of Town), the "if it gets much darker, someone's gonna die" album (Nebraska/The Ghost of Tom Joad), and so on.
Listening to a lot of Mississippi John Hurt. It's all good. Check it out.
Exiles is still excellent. As is Doug Hall.
The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Incredible. Michael Chabon's best. I cannot wait until this comes out and I can start recommending it to people.
Judas Unchained ended strong. Good stuff. Read Pandora's Star first.
Gilead is better the second time around than it was the first. Spectacular.
The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano. This book is great. Think Borges meets Marquez meets Cervantes meets Kerouac.
The Dead Fish Museum by Charles D'Ambrosio. Short story collection on par with Raymond Carver and Andre Dubus.
Listening to the new Bright Eyes and loving it.
Listening to Shaky Hands eponymous debut. Sonically, very Bright Eyes. More fun. More mature.
Listening to Rock Plaza Central. Think Neutral Milk Hotel. Think Will Oldham. Think greatness.
Listening to Tommy James and the Shondells. Hanky Panky. Mony Mony. Crimson and Clover. Crystal Blue Persuasion. Draggin' The Line. You loved this band already and didn't even know it.
Listening to Bruce Springsteen's Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ. My favorite of this type of Bruce album. There is the joyous/victorious/youthful album (Greetings/The Wild, The Innocent...), the working man trying to make it album (The River/Born In The USA), the "we gotta get out of this place" album (Born to Run/Darkness On The Edge of Town), the "if it gets much darker, someone's gonna die" album (Nebraska/The Ghost of Tom Joad), and so on.
Listening to a lot of Mississippi John Hurt. It's all good. Check it out.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Neither Condemning Nor Condoning: The Church and Judgment
#5 on the Dan Kimball list of problems that non-Christians have with the church:
The church is judgmental and negative.
Let me address what I think the statement means and then respond to what the church is, isn't, and is meant to be.
What I hear being said in this statement is that church people are jerks. They think they're better than other people, they think their crap doesn't stink, they condemn others for sin while ignoring their own.
Jesus put it this way, when he preached at religious folks in his time:
"Woe to you teachers of the law...you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."
All that to say, the church can be a hypocritical jerky bunch.
That said, that isn't what the church is called to be.
That said, they aren't called to "live and let live" either.
Unfortunately, when we bring the word judgment into the discussion, we misuse it quite a bit. People often say they don't want to judge, when what they mean is condemn.
For example: Someone offers me milk or rat poison to drink along with my cookie. I do want to make a judgment here. If I don't, I'm dead.
Now, that may seem silly, but we apply this all the time to matters of faith and spirit.
When someone says they don't want to be judgmental, what they mean is that they don't want to be a jerk. This is a good thing. Jesus never called anyone to be a jerk.
However, many take this to the extreme of having no real opinion on anything, or having one but being careful to insist that it isn't the "right" one. After all, right and wrong come off as judgmental.
But we are meant to judge. Jesus judged the teachers of the law when he called them hypocrites. Non-Christians judge the church when they call it negative. These are judgments, and it's ok to make them.
Part of the problem is the verse in the Bible that reads "judge not, lest you be judged." This has been misinterpreted to mean "who am I to say what's right?" and "live and let live".
What the spirit of the text means is "don't condemn". Don't treat a person as if they were defined by their sin. Don't lord it over someone else and refuse to forgive them. Don't go around acting like you're better than everyone else. That's what "judge not" means.
It doesn't mean don't make judgments. Killing is wrong. Hate is wrong. Lying is wrong. Even Jesus said that. He spoke out against divorce and adultery and greed and hatred and selfishness and pride and hypocrisy. He judged people's actions all the time. What he didn't do was condemn. But he also didn't condone.
When Jesus comes across a woman caught in the act of adultery, he speaks two key things to her; "I do not condemn you" and "go and stop sinning". He judges her actions, but not herself. He treats her with love while speaking a judgment against adultery.
The Bible calls this "speaking the truth in love" and it is one of the key commands given to the church. Far too many of us have been speaking the truth, but not in love. These are the people that got us the "judgmental and negative" reputation. But too many more of us have overcompensated by thinking we show love by not speaking the truth. To follow the example of Jesus is to do both.
So, to sum up:
Judgmental can be a good or bad thing, depending upon how it is defined.
The church is called to speak against sin, with an eye towards itself as much as others.
The church is NOT called to sit in condemnation of others while letting itself off the hook.
In fact, the people that Jesus is most judgmental of are religious people. The people that Paul calls to "admonish one another" are church people. Our behavior toward those who don't know Jesus and the way he calls us to live is supposed to begin with love. As those we meet desire to know what it means to follow Jesus, then we begin to share what beliefs and behaviors go with being a follower of Jesus. But we are never called to speak out against "sex in Hollywood" while ignoring the sexual misconduct of leaders in the church.
During this time of Easter, Christians are reminded of the scripture that reads: "God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not die, but have new life. God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him."
Having new life brings with it a new way of living. That means a judgment on the old way of living. But, more importantly, it means salvation from all that the old life couldn't offer and an end to the condemnation that the old life might bring.
As Christians, we are called to a new way and truth and life that is found only in Jesus Christ. We offer that to those we meet and we seek to live it out ourselves. We address the sin in our own lives openly and honestly and address the sin in others' lives with love and forgiveness. Anything less is less than the church should be.
The church is judgmental and negative.
Let me address what I think the statement means and then respond to what the church is, isn't, and is meant to be.
What I hear being said in this statement is that church people are jerks. They think they're better than other people, they think their crap doesn't stink, they condemn others for sin while ignoring their own.
Jesus put it this way, when he preached at religious folks in his time:
"Woe to you teachers of the law...you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."
All that to say, the church can be a hypocritical jerky bunch.
That said, that isn't what the church is called to be.
That said, they aren't called to "live and let live" either.
Unfortunately, when we bring the word judgment into the discussion, we misuse it quite a bit. People often say they don't want to judge, when what they mean is condemn.
For example: Someone offers me milk or rat poison to drink along with my cookie. I do want to make a judgment here. If I don't, I'm dead.
Now, that may seem silly, but we apply this all the time to matters of faith and spirit.
When someone says they don't want to be judgmental, what they mean is that they don't want to be a jerk. This is a good thing. Jesus never called anyone to be a jerk.
However, many take this to the extreme of having no real opinion on anything, or having one but being careful to insist that it isn't the "right" one. After all, right and wrong come off as judgmental.
But we are meant to judge. Jesus judged the teachers of the law when he called them hypocrites. Non-Christians judge the church when they call it negative. These are judgments, and it's ok to make them.
Part of the problem is the verse in the Bible that reads "judge not, lest you be judged." This has been misinterpreted to mean "who am I to say what's right?" and "live and let live".
What the spirit of the text means is "don't condemn". Don't treat a person as if they were defined by their sin. Don't lord it over someone else and refuse to forgive them. Don't go around acting like you're better than everyone else. That's what "judge not" means.
It doesn't mean don't make judgments. Killing is wrong. Hate is wrong. Lying is wrong. Even Jesus said that. He spoke out against divorce and adultery and greed and hatred and selfishness and pride and hypocrisy. He judged people's actions all the time. What he didn't do was condemn. But he also didn't condone.
When Jesus comes across a woman caught in the act of adultery, he speaks two key things to her; "I do not condemn you" and "go and stop sinning". He judges her actions, but not herself. He treats her with love while speaking a judgment against adultery.
The Bible calls this "speaking the truth in love" and it is one of the key commands given to the church. Far too many of us have been speaking the truth, but not in love. These are the people that got us the "judgmental and negative" reputation. But too many more of us have overcompensated by thinking we show love by not speaking the truth. To follow the example of Jesus is to do both.
So, to sum up:
Judgmental can be a good or bad thing, depending upon how it is defined.
The church is called to speak against sin, with an eye towards itself as much as others.
The church is NOT called to sit in condemnation of others while letting itself off the hook.
In fact, the people that Jesus is most judgmental of are religious people. The people that Paul calls to "admonish one another" are church people. Our behavior toward those who don't know Jesus and the way he calls us to live is supposed to begin with love. As those we meet desire to know what it means to follow Jesus, then we begin to share what beliefs and behaviors go with being a follower of Jesus. But we are never called to speak out against "sex in Hollywood" while ignoring the sexual misconduct of leaders in the church.
During this time of Easter, Christians are reminded of the scripture that reads: "God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not die, but have new life. God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him."
Having new life brings with it a new way of living. That means a judgment on the old way of living. But, more importantly, it means salvation from all that the old life couldn't offer and an end to the condemnation that the old life might bring.
As Christians, we are called to a new way and truth and life that is found only in Jesus Christ. We offer that to those we meet and we seek to live it out ourselves. We address the sin in our own lives openly and honestly and address the sin in others' lives with love and forgiveness. Anything less is less than the church should be.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Rock Plaza Central
Remember this name. Now go to your local record store and ask if they have heard of them. All you Smog/Will Oldham/Okkervil River/Neutral Milk Hotel fans are about to get really excited. This is as excited as I've been about a new band since The Arcade Fire first hit.
I am not making this up.
And as potentially pretentious and adorable as an album with such a premise could prove to be, this one simply isn't either of those things.
It's exciting and fun and fantastic.
And it drops on April 17th.
If you'd like to hear them, go visit my myspace profile. Theirs is the song that is playing.
Enjoy.
I am not making this up.
And as potentially pretentious and adorable as an album with such a premise could prove to be, this one simply isn't either of those things.
It's exciting and fun and fantastic.
And it drops on April 17th.
If you'd like to hear them, go visit my myspace profile. Theirs is the song that is playing.
Enjoy.
Jesus Christ Is Risen From The Dead
Theologian Leslie Newbigen was once asked whether he was an optimist or a pessimist. His answer was “I am neither an optimist or a pessimist. Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.”
Jesus speaks resurrection into our world. He is still calling us to new life, a new way, a new reality. One that leaves room for evidence as well as mystery, but overturns our assumptions about both. Jesus’ sacrifice means death to our old lives, but that’s good news. His resurrection means our resurrection. It means everything is different now.
We need to acknowledge our need for resurrection. Not the hope that we found when we finally discovered we were worth something, but the hope that comes with the realization that we’re worth nothing and that Christ can make us worthy. That what was dead can rise again.
We can’t promise if the world will be better or worse tomorrow, we can’t say whether someone will get sick or well or be rich or poor. Those are the false promises of TV evangelists and tarot card readers. What we can do is share new life, show the way, and declare the truth: Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.
Jesus speaks resurrection into our world. He is still calling us to new life, a new way, a new reality. One that leaves room for evidence as well as mystery, but overturns our assumptions about both. Jesus’ sacrifice means death to our old lives, but that’s good news. His resurrection means our resurrection. It means everything is different now.
We need to acknowledge our need for resurrection. Not the hope that we found when we finally discovered we were worth something, but the hope that comes with the realization that we’re worth nothing and that Christ can make us worthy. That what was dead can rise again.
We can’t promise if the world will be better or worse tomorrow, we can’t say whether someone will get sick or well or be rich or poor. Those are the false promises of TV evangelists and tarot card readers. What we can do is share new life, show the way, and declare the truth: Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Good Friday
A group of friends/co-workers are having a party tonight. People that I love and love to be around. And I feel like I should go.
But I don't want to. Much as I don't usually like to close myself off and gather in a "Christians only" huddle, that's all I feel like doing tonight.
Because tonight is the night we remember Christ's death.
Of course, we can't know exact dates, and even the exact date would change from year to year on Friday.
But this is the day, almost 2000 years ago, that Jesus died.
And I want to be with people who know that. People who I can cry with. People who aren't in a party mood.
I'm not in a party mood. Talk to me on Easter.
For now, I'm just sad and frustrated and angry that we didn't know perfect love when we saw it. That we still don't. The world doesn't stop for this and take, at the very least, a moment of silence.
Because almost 2000 years ago, the Son of God was killed by His creation. And His creation ought to pause and recognize what a horrible thing that is.
I don't know what to say about this. I don't know how to be creative or pithy. I have to fight from being maudlin and depressed.
Tonight is not a good night. Things will be better on Sunday, but they couldn't be worse today.
The only way to endure Good Friday is to know that Easter is coming.
I'm not sure how they did it that first time. To know the truth and despair of Nietzsche's "God is dead", to feel it in your bones.
It must have been hell. It must have been a kind of hell for Nietzsche. It must be hell for anyone who still thinks it's true.
I know it isn't true, but tonight I live in that moment when it seemed to be. When Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When the soldier watched him die and said "this man truly was the Son of God." What hopelessness he must have felt, to discover that too late.
I want to gather my loved ones close. I want to tear my clothes and yell. I want mourning on an epic scale. I want to do something.
But there's nothing to do. Except wait...
But I don't want to. Much as I don't usually like to close myself off and gather in a "Christians only" huddle, that's all I feel like doing tonight.
Because tonight is the night we remember Christ's death.
Of course, we can't know exact dates, and even the exact date would change from year to year on Friday.
But this is the day, almost 2000 years ago, that Jesus died.
And I want to be with people who know that. People who I can cry with. People who aren't in a party mood.
I'm not in a party mood. Talk to me on Easter.
For now, I'm just sad and frustrated and angry that we didn't know perfect love when we saw it. That we still don't. The world doesn't stop for this and take, at the very least, a moment of silence.
Because almost 2000 years ago, the Son of God was killed by His creation. And His creation ought to pause and recognize what a horrible thing that is.
I don't know what to say about this. I don't know how to be creative or pithy. I have to fight from being maudlin and depressed.
Tonight is not a good night. Things will be better on Sunday, but they couldn't be worse today.
The only way to endure Good Friday is to know that Easter is coming.
I'm not sure how they did it that first time. To know the truth and despair of Nietzsche's "God is dead", to feel it in your bones.
It must have been hell. It must have been a kind of hell for Nietzsche. It must be hell for anyone who still thinks it's true.
I know it isn't true, but tonight I live in that moment when it seemed to be. When Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When the soldier watched him die and said "this man truly was the Son of God." What hopelessness he must have felt, to discover that too late.
I want to gather my loved ones close. I want to tear my clothes and yell. I want mourning on an epic scale. I want to do something.
But there's nothing to do. Except wait...
Reading and Listening
Decoding the Universe. Still working. May need to put this down.
Exiles. Still reading. Still excellent. Also reading Douglas John Hall's "The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity" as a sort of supplement. Both amazing books.
The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Almost finished. It's fantastic. Unless he completely blows the ending, this is Michael Chabon's (Wonder Boys, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay) best book yet.
Judas Unchained by Peter Hamilton. The sequel to Pandora's Star. I'm not usually a sci-fi guy, but this is good for the same reasons the new Battlestar is good.
Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. Reread. So amazing. Better than Housekeeping, which was hard to beat.
Listening to Dinosaur Jr. I'm not sure if you might have missed them, but they're for all you Nirvana/Pixies/Pavement fans. But before all those guys.
Listening to Smog as I await the upcoming Bill Callahan album. Looking for anyone who has laid hands on an advance copy of this or the new Bright Eyes.
Listening to my Sidewalk Singalong Mix. Check it out by clicking on Kester's Art of the Mix in my links.
Exiles. Still reading. Still excellent. Also reading Douglas John Hall's "The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity" as a sort of supplement. Both amazing books.
The Yiddish Policeman's Union. Almost finished. It's fantastic. Unless he completely blows the ending, this is Michael Chabon's (Wonder Boys, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay) best book yet.
Judas Unchained by Peter Hamilton. The sequel to Pandora's Star. I'm not usually a sci-fi guy, but this is good for the same reasons the new Battlestar is good.
Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. Reread. So amazing. Better than Housekeeping, which was hard to beat.
Listening to Dinosaur Jr. I'm not sure if you might have missed them, but they're for all you Nirvana/Pixies/Pavement fans. But before all those guys.
Listening to Smog as I await the upcoming Bill Callahan album. Looking for anyone who has laid hands on an advance copy of this or the new Bright Eyes.
Listening to my Sidewalk Singalong Mix. Check it out by clicking on Kester's Art of the Mix in my links.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Oh No She Didn't: The Church and Women
Let me begin by apologizing for the time between my last Kimball post and this one.
Let me go on to say that I hope this post garners the kind of conversation the previous one did.
Let me further say that, like the previous post, good and faithful Christians find themselves on opposing sides of this issue. Which means that somebody is wrong, and we need to stay in loving conversation to try and work this out.
Almost last, but not least, I am on the more "liberal" side of this as opposed to the more "conservative" side on homosexual relationships. This just shows what a difficult task this parsing out of biblical teaching is.
Finally, many of the arguments I make about the church and homosexuality, other Christians would make about the church and women. I don't think they hold up as well, and I'll explain why.
As we begin, it should be acknowledged that I don't ever think a Christian can simply disregard a biblical truth because they find it outdated or impractical. I've had folks on the same side of the "women's issue" as me, whose argument was, simply, "well, some parts of the Bible have to be disregarded when they don't fit out lives." I disagree with that simple an approach, and find it an inappropriate way to deal with biblical teaching. Where I come from on the role of women in the church I come from because of what the Bible teaches and not in spite of it. If I truly believed that the Bible demanded that my wife be silent in all spiritual matters, I would abide by that. More importantly, she would too (not that I'm in the habit of speaking for my wife, but I have heard her express just such a sentiment on numerous occasions).
The view that I take on the role of women is one that the church would describe as egalitarian.
While the church might call me an egalitarian, I'd add a complimentarian caveat. I believe that men and women compliment each other without a hierarchy. I believe that men and women are created by God to be equal, but not the same.
However, for my purposes today, we'll go with egalitarian, the belief that women can serve as leaders, teachers, pastors, etc. just as men can.
Most of the scripture that seems to prohibit this has to be understood within its context. This is tricky. Because context varies doesn't necessarily mean that the truth bends accordingly. But it can mean that. This is why we have to look at various teachings within various contexts to see if an ongoing truth is being taught.
In my previous post on homosexuality (and the follow up discussion) this issue of context arose. The point I made there was that teaching on the issue over a wide span of contexts was consistently against it. No examples of God approved homosexual relationships exist within the biblical story.
This is not the case for the teachings on women. For every time the Bible says "a woman must be silent" we have an example of a woman who is called by God to stand up and lead God's people in some form or fashion. So we have to do the difficult work of context clues.
Most of the passages that are referenced by the complimentarian view come from the writings of Paul. It is because of this that Paul is often (unfairly) accused of being a chauvinist.
Paul's writings are letters, often written to specific churches. So, when he says "a wife must submit to her husband", we have to discern if there is a principle to follow, a practice endorsed, or if practice and principle go hand in hand.
My belief is that it's almost impossible to say that the principle and practice in terms of women in leadership goes hand in hand. Paul himself seems to be saying that women shouldn't speak and then turning around and praising God for various women who have helped him by taking lead roles in ministry.
Let me just take one problematic passage to show what I mean about discernment, principle and practice.
Paul writes to a church and says that "women must be silent". What that seems to say is that it is never appropriate for a woman to speak up in church (in fact, many believe that IS what it says). But then there are examples of women who do and are praised for it. So, what is going on?
Paul is writing to a church that existed in a society where women were second class citizens, mostly uneducated, and submissive to male authority. He begins preaching a message from Jesus that says that "in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female". What begins to happen, as a result, is that female converts begin asserting their rights in very disruptive ways.
Because of this, Paul writes to this specific church and says, basically "tell the women to be quiet and stop interrupting. If they have a question, they can ask it later."
Imagine this scenario. Years ago I worked with a group of teenagers in San Antonio. Imagine that I moved away and found out that many of the teens that I had introduced to Jesus were now disrupting worship gatherings and shouting out at the preacher in the middle of the sermon. Assuming that my opinion carried some weight with these teens, I might write to the church and say "tell the teens to stop talking."
Now imagine some other church, thousands of years later, coming across that letter and using it as the reason why teenagers are never allowed to pray, read scripture, or speak or lead in any way in church.
What the church ought to do is apply the principle that those who are new to the faith and eager to learn, need to know that there is a time and a place to ask questions.
In another scenario, Paul talks about the importance of women submitting to husbands. This has been used to say that women cannot hold places of leadership. But Paul was, again, writing to women who have always ahd to submit. Many of them are using their newfound freedom in Christ as a sort of fight for their rights. Paul reminds them that they are called to follow the example of Christ, who submitted his will on behalf of others. Better to do right than demands rights. But Paul also says (and this would have been scandalous at the time) that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That means an even greater call to submission, service, and sacrifice. And Paul begins the entire passage by saying to both parties "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." For Paul, sharing the love of Christ with someone was more important than asserting rights, even if they those rights were rightfully ours.
This is why I didn't serve alcohol at my wedding or why I don't call the cops on my neighbor when her dog poops on my lawn or why I'm not caustic to a customer when they act similarly towards me. I have every right to do all of these things. But I also want to be in right relationship with my teetotaling grandmother or my neighbor or my customer, so I don't assert those rights, I submit myself, my rights, my desires.
This isn't Paul saying that wives should stay in abusive relationships or even that the church should treat them as secondary. It is Paul asking all Christians to put Christ and the cause of Christ over themselves. He also asks slaves to be the best slaves they can be. This isn't Paul advocating slavery, it is Paul realizing he can't lead a slave revolt, and asking slaves to be Jesus in all circumstances. He also demands that masters love their slaves, another scandalous notion for that time. Those who used this passage to endorse slave ownership by Christians weren't seeing what Paul meant at all.
And, I believe, those who use these scriptures to keep women "in their place" aren't seeing what Paul meant either. I think they're good and faithful people, I just think they're wrong. I think a proper understanding of Paul's writing and other teaching shows that God meant for men and women to live in partnership as equals.
Let me go on to say that I hope this post garners the kind of conversation the previous one did.
Let me further say that, like the previous post, good and faithful Christians find themselves on opposing sides of this issue. Which means that somebody is wrong, and we need to stay in loving conversation to try and work this out.
Almost last, but not least, I am on the more "liberal" side of this as opposed to the more "conservative" side on homosexual relationships. This just shows what a difficult task this parsing out of biblical teaching is.
Finally, many of the arguments I make about the church and homosexuality, other Christians would make about the church and women. I don't think they hold up as well, and I'll explain why.
As we begin, it should be acknowledged that I don't ever think a Christian can simply disregard a biblical truth because they find it outdated or impractical. I've had folks on the same side of the "women's issue" as me, whose argument was, simply, "well, some parts of the Bible have to be disregarded when they don't fit out lives." I disagree with that simple an approach, and find it an inappropriate way to deal with biblical teaching. Where I come from on the role of women in the church I come from because of what the Bible teaches and not in spite of it. If I truly believed that the Bible demanded that my wife be silent in all spiritual matters, I would abide by that. More importantly, she would too (not that I'm in the habit of speaking for my wife, but I have heard her express just such a sentiment on numerous occasions).
The view that I take on the role of women is one that the church would describe as egalitarian.
The Christian egalitarian view holds that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and the overarching principles of scripture as articulated in Galatians 3:28. While Bible passages are subject to various interpretations, Christian egalitarians believe that:
-
-
- there should be no gender distinction in roles of men and women in the function or leadership of the church, to include ordination of women, or in society in general
- in marriage the wife and husband not only are created equal as female and male, but there is no biblically-prescribed hierarchy giving the husband any authority over the wife.
-
While the church might call me an egalitarian, I'd add a complimentarian caveat. I believe that men and women compliment each other without a hierarchy. I believe that men and women are created by God to be equal, but not the same.
However, for my purposes today, we'll go with egalitarian, the belief that women can serve as leaders, teachers, pastors, etc. just as men can.
Most of the scripture that seems to prohibit this has to be understood within its context. This is tricky. Because context varies doesn't necessarily mean that the truth bends accordingly. But it can mean that. This is why we have to look at various teachings within various contexts to see if an ongoing truth is being taught.
In my previous post on homosexuality (and the follow up discussion) this issue of context arose. The point I made there was that teaching on the issue over a wide span of contexts was consistently against it. No examples of God approved homosexual relationships exist within the biblical story.
This is not the case for the teachings on women. For every time the Bible says "a woman must be silent" we have an example of a woman who is called by God to stand up and lead God's people in some form or fashion. So we have to do the difficult work of context clues.
Most of the passages that are referenced by the complimentarian view come from the writings of Paul. It is because of this that Paul is often (unfairly) accused of being a chauvinist.
Paul's writings are letters, often written to specific churches. So, when he says "a wife must submit to her husband", we have to discern if there is a principle to follow, a practice endorsed, or if practice and principle go hand in hand.
My belief is that it's almost impossible to say that the principle and practice in terms of women in leadership goes hand in hand. Paul himself seems to be saying that women shouldn't speak and then turning around and praising God for various women who have helped him by taking lead roles in ministry.
Let me just take one problematic passage to show what I mean about discernment, principle and practice.
Paul writes to a church and says that "women must be silent". What that seems to say is that it is never appropriate for a woman to speak up in church (in fact, many believe that IS what it says). But then there are examples of women who do and are praised for it. So, what is going on?
Paul is writing to a church that existed in a society where women were second class citizens, mostly uneducated, and submissive to male authority. He begins preaching a message from Jesus that says that "in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female". What begins to happen, as a result, is that female converts begin asserting their rights in very disruptive ways.
Because of this, Paul writes to this specific church and says, basically "tell the women to be quiet and stop interrupting. If they have a question, they can ask it later."
Imagine this scenario. Years ago I worked with a group of teenagers in San Antonio. Imagine that I moved away and found out that many of the teens that I had introduced to Jesus were now disrupting worship gatherings and shouting out at the preacher in the middle of the sermon. Assuming that my opinion carried some weight with these teens, I might write to the church and say "tell the teens to stop talking."
Now imagine some other church, thousands of years later, coming across that letter and using it as the reason why teenagers are never allowed to pray, read scripture, or speak or lead in any way in church.
What the church ought to do is apply the principle that those who are new to the faith and eager to learn, need to know that there is a time and a place to ask questions.
In another scenario, Paul talks about the importance of women submitting to husbands. This has been used to say that women cannot hold places of leadership. But Paul was, again, writing to women who have always ahd to submit. Many of them are using their newfound freedom in Christ as a sort of fight for their rights. Paul reminds them that they are called to follow the example of Christ, who submitted his will on behalf of others. Better to do right than demands rights. But Paul also says (and this would have been scandalous at the time) that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That means an even greater call to submission, service, and sacrifice. And Paul begins the entire passage by saying to both parties "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." For Paul, sharing the love of Christ with someone was more important than asserting rights, even if they those rights were rightfully ours.
This is why I didn't serve alcohol at my wedding or why I don't call the cops on my neighbor when her dog poops on my lawn or why I'm not caustic to a customer when they act similarly towards me. I have every right to do all of these things. But I also want to be in right relationship with my teetotaling grandmother or my neighbor or my customer, so I don't assert those rights, I submit myself, my rights, my desires.
This isn't Paul saying that wives should stay in abusive relationships or even that the church should treat them as secondary. It is Paul asking all Christians to put Christ and the cause of Christ over themselves. He also asks slaves to be the best slaves they can be. This isn't Paul advocating slavery, it is Paul realizing he can't lead a slave revolt, and asking slaves to be Jesus in all circumstances. He also demands that masters love their slaves, another scandalous notion for that time. Those who used this passage to endorse slave ownership by Christians weren't seeing what Paul meant at all.
And, I believe, those who use these scriptures to keep women "in their place" aren't seeing what Paul meant either. I think they're good and faithful people, I just think they're wrong. I think a proper understanding of Paul's writing and other teaching shows that God meant for men and women to live in partnership as equals.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Foods Don't Fatten People...Oh Wait...Yes They Do
A little while back, I posted on my blog about a group called "Jesus Would Have Thought Bush Was A Douchebag" (http://pastorkes.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-would-jesus-think.html) and commented about the problems with said group/slogan/idea.
So, in fairness (and because it's really bugging me), allow me to comment on a t-shirt I saw today which read:
"If guns kill people, food makes Michael Moore fat."
The problems with this are endless, but let's begin with...
1) Food DOES make Micahel Moore fat. Okay, it's possible that Michael Moore has a glandular problem that I don't know about. I'll pick a target who is also opposed to guns and also a tad too wide in the waist...me. Food is certainly the reason I am fat. So your argument is sort of blown at the onset (which is fine with me). But, the implication may be that it is Michael Moore's RIGHT to be fat that is being compared to Joe Gunowner's right to own a gun. In which case, I'd say...
2) This would hold up if the only thing that gun owners ever shot was themselves. Now, let's be clear, I DO NOT THINK THAT GUN OWNERS SHOULD SHOOT THEMSELVES. I am simply stating that the only person Micahel Moore's poor eating habits are hurting is himself. Whereas Joe Gunowner's poor gun owning habits might potentially hurt me. This analogy might hold up better if one person with poor eating habits could potentially slip and make their kid or next door neighbor suddenly fat. If this could happen, I would argue that we need to have a whole lot less food lying around.
"Aha!" Joe Gunowner exclaims, "so you'd have less food about, but you wouldn't outlaw eating altogether." That's true, I wouldn't. But that doesn't weaken my argument, it strengthens it. It shows that while eating ought to be a right, given that it is necessary to survive, gun ownership ought not be, given that it is...you know...not.
But, the fact is, most of those who are arguing against guns aren't wanting to make gun ownership illegal (that's just nuts like me). Most of them want more restrictions on gun ownership. They want it to be harder for an irresponsible person to get a gun, they want access to guns to be limited; sort of like having less junk food lying around so that your neighbor doesn't accidently get fat.
Because guns don't kill people, people do. And people can be really stupid. You should see some of the things the guys in my Lunch Bunch do on Fridays. Then imagine if we were the Gun Bunch.
So, in fairness (and because it's really bugging me), allow me to comment on a t-shirt I saw today which read:
"If guns kill people, food makes Michael Moore fat."
The problems with this are endless, but let's begin with...
1) Food DOES make Micahel Moore fat. Okay, it's possible that Michael Moore has a glandular problem that I don't know about. I'll pick a target who is also opposed to guns and also a tad too wide in the waist...me. Food is certainly the reason I am fat. So your argument is sort of blown at the onset (which is fine with me). But, the implication may be that it is Michael Moore's RIGHT to be fat that is being compared to Joe Gunowner's right to own a gun. In which case, I'd say...
2) This would hold up if the only thing that gun owners ever shot was themselves. Now, let's be clear, I DO NOT THINK THAT GUN OWNERS SHOULD SHOOT THEMSELVES. I am simply stating that the only person Micahel Moore's poor eating habits are hurting is himself. Whereas Joe Gunowner's poor gun owning habits might potentially hurt me. This analogy might hold up better if one person with poor eating habits could potentially slip and make their kid or next door neighbor suddenly fat. If this could happen, I would argue that we need to have a whole lot less food lying around.
"Aha!" Joe Gunowner exclaims, "so you'd have less food about, but you wouldn't outlaw eating altogether." That's true, I wouldn't. But that doesn't weaken my argument, it strengthens it. It shows that while eating ought to be a right, given that it is necessary to survive, gun ownership ought not be, given that it is...you know...not.
But, the fact is, most of those who are arguing against guns aren't wanting to make gun ownership illegal (that's just nuts like me). Most of them want more restrictions on gun ownership. They want it to be harder for an irresponsible person to get a gun, they want access to guns to be limited; sort of like having less junk food lying around so that your neighbor doesn't accidently get fat.
Because guns don't kill people, people do. And people can be really stupid. You should see some of the things the guys in my Lunch Bunch do on Fridays. Then imagine if we were the Gun Bunch.
Monday, April 2, 2007
From "Hosanna" to "Crucify Him": The Distance Between Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday
Palm Sunday brings together a mix of symbols and prophecy, all to declare one truth; that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of Kings.
The people affirm that this is so by waving palm leaves and crying out “Hosanna”, which means “Save us”. They know that their Messiah has come.
But they still don’t know what that means. Which is why, before the week is out, some of those same people will have abandoned Jesus. Some of them will have gone from shouting “Save us” to shouting “Crucify him”.
What does Palm Sunday mean for us? It certainly means a time of celebration, but it is also a time to ask what it is we want and expect when we cry out “Hosanna” “Save us”.
Are we like those disciples from almost 2000 years ago, who cried out for a Messiah who would fulfill their hopes and desires? Are we ready to sing a song of praise, but only as long as Jesus is doing what we want? Will we find that we have declared that Jesus is Lord on Sunday only to have denied him by Thursday?
Palm Sunday is a time to celebrate and a time to contemplate. To declare that Jesus is Savior, but that also means Jesus is Lord. That he will define what Messiah means and he will be the Way for us to follow.
Even if that means we follow him to a cross. Because that’s where we’re headed. For some of Jesus’ disciples, that meant a literal cross. Others were killed in other ways, but also for following him. We might not face death, but we are called to face sacrifice, to embrace it as what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Are we willing not only to declare our praises when it’s convenient, but to live out his love and sacrifice when it brings us trouble, and trial, and death? Because that is what we are called to do. That is who we are called to be.
Let us not be those who would cry “Hosanna” one minute and crucify him the next. Let us not abandon him in the face of trouble. And let us remember the truth that the apostles would soon discover, that even when we do abandon him, he has not abandoned us.
The people affirm that this is so by waving palm leaves and crying out “Hosanna”, which means “Save us”. They know that their Messiah has come.
But they still don’t know what that means. Which is why, before the week is out, some of those same people will have abandoned Jesus. Some of them will have gone from shouting “Save us” to shouting “Crucify him”.
What does Palm Sunday mean for us? It certainly means a time of celebration, but it is also a time to ask what it is we want and expect when we cry out “Hosanna” “Save us”.
Are we like those disciples from almost 2000 years ago, who cried out for a Messiah who would fulfill their hopes and desires? Are we ready to sing a song of praise, but only as long as Jesus is doing what we want? Will we find that we have declared that Jesus is Lord on Sunday only to have denied him by Thursday?
Palm Sunday is a time to celebrate and a time to contemplate. To declare that Jesus is Savior, but that also means Jesus is Lord. That he will define what Messiah means and he will be the Way for us to follow.
Even if that means we follow him to a cross. Because that’s where we’re headed. For some of Jesus’ disciples, that meant a literal cross. Others were killed in other ways, but also for following him. We might not face death, but we are called to face sacrifice, to embrace it as what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Are we willing not only to declare our praises when it’s convenient, but to live out his love and sacrifice when it brings us trouble, and trial, and death? Because that is what we are called to do. That is who we are called to be.
Let us not be those who would cry “Hosanna” one minute and crucify him the next. Let us not abandon him in the face of trouble. And let us remember the truth that the apostles would soon discover, that even when we do abandon him, he has not abandoned us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)