Christmas Blessings

Tonight at the Christmas family service my kids will be Mary, Joseph and Jesus. The unplanned baby, all six months and 21 pounds of him, will star as the Messiah!

As I am an emotional sort, I suspect some emotions to flow. Perhaps, most intensely, I will feel the burden of fatherhood. Looking at my baby and thinking about his future, I am keenly aware that The Father/God of Jesus had no such questions. He knew that baby Jesus was going to grow up and fulfill the hopes and promises of Israel. How much harder it would be to celebrate the birth when one knows that the cross looms in the future. The celebration of new life and joy is shrouded, at least in part, by that reality.

The cost to God of making salvation possible is often overlooked by us. I hope you will sing a Christmas hymn or two that includes verses about the Savior. "Nails, spears will pierce Him through... the Babe, the Son of Mary." Tonight, several times in our little church, we will gather in eucharist (thanksgiving) and remember His birth and ponder on what it means. I pray all of you who have spent your valuable time reading my thoughts will be blessed with a deep fullness of the meaning of Jesus.

I will post again after the new year! Blessings in the Only Son, the Sole Source of Life and Blessing.

Bashing Mary

The other day on our local Christian radio station, some preacher went on an extended diatribe about Mary. He was clearly expressing some pent up anger, probably aimed at Roman Catholics, and he went on and on about her sins.

I understand the need to clarify the unique role of Jesus in salvation. He is God Incarnate. Period. There is no other intercessor between God and humanity. Period. It is in Jesus and Jesus alone that we find salvation. Period. I believe and I preach this message regularly. But....

Here is my question. If Jesus is human (orthodox faith says, fully human) and if Jesus is a good son and Jesus is a man and Jesus has any sense of honor, then what is Jesus' response to people going out of their way to speak ill of His mother. I do not question the motivation of those who do this, but I do think at time there is some disrespect. At some point don't you think Jesus might say, "That is my mother you are talking about!"?

Many self identified "Bible Believing Christians" never refer to Mary as the Blessed Mother. I do not know why. In the Bible, Luke 1:48, Mary's Magnificat states, "all generations will call me blessed." Note the last word, blessed. Just prior to this, Elizabeth, pregnant with baby John the Baptist and filled with the Holy Spirit declared, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?"

I know there are excesses in Marian devotion, but seriously, is the only alternative to ignore her, or only mention her to run her down? Her "yes" to God is, like it or not, a vital link in our salvation. No momma Mary, no baby Jesus. God made a world where human cooperation is needed. I also know that Mary cared for baby Jesus, toddler Jesus, little boy Jesus, teenage Jesus and she was there at the bitter end on the cross. Luke's portrayal is the most positive and touching. A mother's pain in her Son's death is something we can imagine, and many mothers have experienced. She shared in the cross of Jesus, at least in a natural sense, in ways very few Christians ever have or could. Mary is, for that reason, worthy of respect (though not worship).

I have always struggled with the proper mode of Marian devotion. I think her role as a mediator is Biblical (cf John 2) and I think her status is great in the eyes of God. I truly understand why many folks prefer not to talk about  her. I just think it is rude to trash her. Her sacrifices and the price she paid to bring Jesus in the world are the work of God through a human. She said things like "I am the servant of the Lord" and "Do whatever He tells you." She is a role model and a type of Eve, of Israel and of the church. Based on moms I have known, she probably treated the disciples of Jesus like her own kids. In a real sense, she was a "mom" to them (and us). John's Gospel alludes to that in the crucifixion. A pious young Jewish girl, untouched by a male, holy and pure, she is the gateway of the Incarnation. As we gather to ADORE HIM let us spend a brief moment to thank her. It is the respectful thing to do.

Closing up the Atheist Dialogue

Michael provided a rather lengthy response to my last blog entry and I have decided that it is time to move on to themes reflecting on the season. So this will be my last reflections on all of this.

One thing that is clear to me: to believe or not believe is, to some extent, a decision. Clearly for some it comes easier than others. I do not know where I am personally on that scale.  I have never found it terribly easy (once I grew up). Being shaped and formed in the faith in Catholic schools no doubt provided me a wonderful basis, but tons of Catholic school kids have turned their back on the Lord as adults. Interacting with evangelicals over the years of my teens and early twenties increased and broadened my understanding of God, but evangelicals also say things which do not make sense to me, about God and the world. Spending endless hours in prayer and study, service and pastoral care has at times strengthened and at other times weakened my faith. One often asks, "Is it God or a coincidence?"

In the end, I disagree with Michael. I think the reasons to doubt God are less forceful than the reasons to doubt Atheism. Atheism does not take seriously the meaning of "contingent being." By definition God is different from anything else there is. That is why we worship Him. He alone is good. That is why He is the definition of goodness and truth and morality. That is why His commands are to be obeyed. He is the source of all things, that is why we cannot compare ourselves with Him in any meaningful way. Which, in the end, I did not emphasize enough. All talk about God is analogical. Words applied to God do not have the same meaning when applied to us. That is the first rule of any orthodox theology. I sinned by not making that clearer at the start. (Google apophatic theology for more info!)

Michael misunderstood my statement that I am glad that atheists do not act consistently with their (un)beliefs. It isn't because they should be immoral. It is because atheism means life is meaningless. Nothing really matters. Humans are an accident. Life is an accident. Beauty and goodness are accidents. If there is no God, then as the teenagers say, "whatever..."

The eternal God created time and space and populated it with all manner of living things. He also withdrew, giving His creation room to live. I believe that human dominion (Genesis 1) is real and that, for the best of reasons, God chose to make a world which includes all manner of mysteries and challenges. Is God in time, now that He created it? I do not know. I do personally think that, based on Scripture, He has enterred time to communicate with us. I believe He intervenes and touches our lives. Some call that a God of the gaps and equate it with primitive superstition. Perhaps. Certainly every claim made by Believers is not true. But I have wondered at times, how would God act in the creation if He existed. When I ponder that I realize that His approach, a more secretive and un-obvious approach, makes sense if He has entrusted the work to us. I worship Him as Lord of time and space. I worship Him as good and loving. It is a gift to do this and it is a choice I make. I choice I make over and again each day, sometimes several times a day.

The atheist dilemma is that they live in a world without hope. I still think that one cannot simply write off the hunger for God. I believe it is the finger print of our Creator. Nor do I think you can ignore the resurrection because resurrections just do not happen. After all, isn't that the point! No, in the end, belief is a choice. Living faithfully is a choice. A difficult challenging choice, but a choice. I do not think Believers are better because they believe. I do think we are blessed. And being blessed is what I want to write about next.

Questions for an Atheist

For most of a week I have tried to seriously and respectfully offer some repsonse to the comments of an atheist. I have admitted to struggling with my own doubts. I have not offered anything near a clinching argument that God can and must exist. On the other hand, I do think that the atheist position is also one with more than a few weak points. It is that which I would like to address as I close this series out.

One glaring issue is the question, "If there is no God where did all of this come from?" I think that it is only fair to ask, "if a perfect, self sustaining, eternal God is ruled out as source and creator, how then does one explain the eternity of matter?" Matter is constantly in flux and something which constantly changes does not have to exist. Why then does it exist? If the universe could 'just be' why is it impossible to think that a Divine Source could 'just be'?

By extension, on what grounds does an atheist determine that God is answerable for His failures? If there is no God then certainly there is no morality. (This is CS Lewis' main point) I do not deny that many atheists are moral and that some atheists have been humanitarians. This is no personal attack on them. However, it is an attack on the idea of moral right and wrong in a world of blind chance and accident. On what grounds does morality exist? While we may have personal preferences, we can not say anything is moral or immoral. Atheist too often speak in a way that assumes the condition of a world where there is a God and there is a moral core. [I am glad of this. If atheists were consistent then the world would be a worse place.]

I am no scientist, but I have read numerous books which raise interesting questions. One of them is the Law of Thermodynamics. In simplest language, things tend to run down, to disintegrate. How is it that evolution creates advances if the world is running down? Another question, how does evolution create an ape which can do physics, higher math, or create a symphony? The ability to stay alive and avoid saber tooth tigers hardly seems sufficient reason to explain the brain's leap to that level of function. There are additional, more complex questions (like the multiple mechanisms involved in evolution which raises questions on how it can work). None of them prove there is a God, but they certainly raise some doubts about doubting!

Probably the most interesting, to me, is the question of dissatisfaction. If the natural world is all there is, why is their such an aching and longing in the human soul? Why are we never completelysatisfied? From whence the desire for God? The atheist may respond, the desire for God is no proof there is one. This is true, but it is certainly evidence which cannot be brished away. We are hungry, food exists. We are thirsty, drink exists. We are tired, sleep exists. We are lonely, people exist. Most every need/desire has a fulfillment. Why would a world devoid of God generate, spontaneously, a need for God? Why do some of us feel a need to worship, if there is nothing there?

There are so many other questions which should cause an atheist to ponder: why is there beauty? How did joy come to be? What of the bonds which draw us together? I think that the atheist position has plenty to answer for and it is difficult to hold with surety.

Once more, I am not saying any of this proves God is, but it does prove that a sincere atheist has his/her own set of issues to wonder about. It is simply not smarter or more courageous to doubt God. It is not more human or humane to reject the idea that He exists. It is not more logical or rational to posit a Godless universe, here because it is, which somehow generates by sheer accident lower life forms which then, by sheer accident, developed into antelopes, aardvarks and ants (just to name the A's). I have my doubts, but an atheist should, too. And if it is possible (even probable) that there is a God, all sorts of things follow.

As for Jesus, His resurrection also enters the mix. Strange goings on indeed, if the world is not the creation of an unseen God! So I will continue, in my deeply flawed way to try to know, love,  and serve the Lord and await the Day of Unveiling.

Response to an atheist 3

I wanted to conclude this dialogue with Michael today. I am very appreciative of his willingness to publicly discuss this issue on this blog. While acknowledging that some have found this ponderous I do want to share I have had several e-mails indicating that it is helpful. With such a small readership I still have a wide diversity of reactions!!!

It seems Michael's main objection to God is really centered on Divine culpabiilty for evil in the world.

First of all: The problem of evil is NOT theoretical. Sometimes Christian apologists make an error in treating it as such. For people who have experienced severe suffering or watched others suffer, the issue of evil is overpowering and wondering about responsibility is overwhelming. In the end, those shaped by the (children's version) story of the Garden of Eden have a hard time understanding how eating an apple justifies mass starvation, murder, rape, torture and all the other results. [I think Genesis is much deeper than this, but I have to admit many popular versions of Christians are not too much deeper than this.] Hence, Michael's statement (to paraphrase) that IF there is a God then God owes us an apology, must be heard, acknowledged and respectfully refuted (or sadly affirmed).

I am not foolish or arrogant enough to think I can answer this issue. However, I have wrestled with it myself, sometimes personally with the heart and other times dispassionately with the intellect. I want to share a few things which I hope are helpful (if not for an atheist, than for a struggling Believer).

1. I read this in John Chrysostom and it made sense: much of the problem of evil and suffering has to do with our own perspective. He wrote about God's Providence while slowly dying in exile for his faith. A renowned preacher and Bishop, his last days were spent shivering and sick, pondering the mystery which he was living/dying into. His point is, therefore, not simply words. It is his shared faith. We must admit that there is a subjective element to all of this. Perhaps some of our complaints against God are not legitimate. In reality, our perspective very much influences how we understand something. His point is, IF we could see things from God's perspective, some of what we call evil may be not so bad as we think. This does not answer every aspect of the question, but it is certainly true about some things.
2. The nature of a creation, if it is material, has to be recognized. Only God is perfect. Contingent beings are not God. Therefore anything created is not perfect (in the sense that God is perfect). Diversity causes some problems. I do not think we ponder enough, that the cost of a creation is the possibility that the diverse entities may cause damage to each other. A rock rolling down a hill crushes a flower. Is it the rocks fault? Should God have made a creation without rocks (or flowers)? Some might argue uncrushable flowers would be better, but would such a flower ever adorn a dinner table, hat or a lapel? Once a creature with limits is created, those limits produce the possibility for some sad thing to happen.
3. Human evil is a direct result of freedom. If we are free to love, we are also free to not-love. While some evil in the world is a result of nature being nature (a tsunami or earthquake or fire) much of the evil we see is human created. Does God owe us an apology because some people chose to use their talents to wreak havoc? Or is God supposed to intervene (miracle = breaking the laws of nature)? Should God limit freedom to prevent suffering? What then of human responsibility? Would the human person grow in an environment where God was always there to rescue us from our choices?
4. What is the purpose of life? What is the point? Maybe we are supposed to obey first and ask questions later (not something I am adept at, unfortunately!). My sense of things is God has given over to us a great deal of autonomy. We were created to be Lords over the creation. Why did He do this? The Bible does not explain. In fact, both OT and NT seem to indicate that God does not feel compelled to answer us. Perhaps this is part of the answer. Remember who we are and remember who God is. [Admittedly not a real compelling argument for an atheist...] I was taught that life on earth was meant to "grow a soul" and become what we are meant to be. [what about dead babies, children, etc.???] The struggles are the stuff out of which God shapes us into our future self. It does not make it understandable, but it does remind us to keep pushing.

In the end, LIFE IS A MYSTERY. Even really smart people cannot figure it out. Does God owe us an apology? Not since Calvary. God embraced it all. He shared in it. This will be the theme of my Christmas homily. Whatever else an atheist, or anyone, wants to say about God, if Christianity is true (it is!!!) then God has paid the price for creation. And if God owes us an apology, my guess is we will get one some day. Perhaps the more pertinent question is, "If I exist, do I owe God an apology?" My belief is that we humans have much more to apologize for than God does. Of course, I am guilt ridden. [But maybe, we should all be guilt ridden?] And I trust that God is merciful. I cannot write anything to make Michael, or any atheist, have a conversion. I can say, I understand you pain, your struggle, your questions, brother. I do not know why I believe, except the Christian faith seems believable. I now I have lots of doubts and questions. I also know, that some day I will find out, or disappeat into earth. I am betting on Jesus!

Response to an atheist 2

Yesterday we looked at the question of "Divine Need" and Perfection. Michael responded to that. Today I want to pick up on the penultimate point he makes and then finish up with his key concern, God's culpability, at the end of the week.

Quoting Michael, "Christopher Hitchens has said that he not only disbelieves in God but would not want a god to exist, since it would mean we would be under continual surveillance.--- as he puts it, "a sort of celestial North Korea"

I think such an admission is heroic honesty. Too often, atheist arguments against God's existence bandy about numerous psychological reasons for faith. Religious people are thought to be weak and in need of a daddy in the sky. Faith is criticized as a sort of sedative to calm jittery nerves when facing death and suffering. By extension, the critics paint a portrait of the noble, courageous atheist, willing to look the darkness in the face and soldier on. Atheism is often protrayed as the more intelligent option and certainly the choice of those with the guts and grit to live in the real world.

Hitchens, on the other hand, has admitted to his own psychological motivation. He desires to live an autonomous life, freed of the scrutiny of any God. [Alert, Hitchens has many other reasons and arguments as well. His is not simply a petulant rejection of God.] The reason this is important, to me, is because it serves as a reminder that ALL of us, believer or not, has a mixture of motives for our beliefs.

There is research connecting ones faith in God to one's relationship with one's father. There are needs based motivations which lead one to believe (or not). Social influences play a factor. Self image and self understanding have a part to play. Like all decisions and choices, faith is driven as much, or more, by non-rational factors as it is by reason and thinking.

For some the spectre of judgment is viewed so negatively that, at least in the Hitchens quote, the assumption is that an all knowing God must be like North Korea. I find such a comparison to be very telling. I also submit that there is an alternative. Judgment can also be an affirmation. Don't all of us need, want, require that another pass judgment on our work? Is asking, "Did I do a good job?" not an important part of being human? An all-seeing God may produce some anxiety as we look at our failures; yet it is of solace for those who hear God say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Even more important, as we face the travails of a broken world, where do we turn for hope of salvation. The watchful eye of God can be understood as a benevolent observer. The God of the Torah says, "I see your travails. I hear your cries. I know your suffering. I remember my covenant with you." Surely comfort can be mixed with fear in facing Judgment.

Hitchens prefers a world where there is no accountability. One can choose to live as one sees fit. I would argue that most unbelievers, fortunately, adopt a way of life which is contrary to their stated (un)Beliefs. They frequently act in a way that is moral and good, as if the world did make sense and as if there were SomeOne who provides a moral core by which we are to conform our behaviors. Faith, at least traditional Christian faith, demands right actions and morality. It places demands upon us. Yes, there is comfort, joy and hope, but, faith does not allow us to escape life in all its brutality and ugliness. However, faith does provide a rationale for our values... If one wants to value human life, to see the poor and needy as somehow different from a chimpanzee or an ocelot, then God is a context and criteria for making such a leap. This will be something to expand in the days ahead.

Response to an atheist

I continue to review and respond to Michael's questions:

He states, "The first is that my principal objection, as an atheist, to the idea of God is that if God is here, we should not be. If he is God, he is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and transcends time. If those things are true, there could be no reason, not only for him to create , but to *do anything at all.*

I can understand the argument. I remembered discussing this very thing in philosophy classrooms in the late 1970's and theology classrooms in the 1980's. In the end, I think the answer is one word: "Love."

God did not create us because of any lack in Him. He did it because He desired to provide us an opportunity to exist. Michaels' assumption, 'because God is perfect" therefore "He cannot need or want anything." This is a fair statement, based on philosophical assumptions about God. There are many logical reasons to believe this. BUT, the God of revelation is different from the 'god' of speculative human reason.

Herein lies the difference in our thoughts. Michael states that "a perfect, omnipotent being for whom all time is now"  is unable to need or want. Probably, one answer, is simply to say, "It is a mystery. Stop talking and worship." [I personally think that is the message of the book of Job and places in Isaiah.] I think it is logical and reasonable to say, "The mystery of God is beyond our meager intellectual capacity." But the problem is, our theologies impact our activities (lived faith). I have heard complaints that all of this stuff in the blog lately is too difficult. Perhaps. But in the end, even simple people have theories and make statements about God. Even simple people need to address their assumptions, beliefs and the consequences of those beliefs.

I believe that God has the ability to choose. I do not think God created us to worship Him (as I heard the Bible Answer Man tell a young boy yesterday on the radio). The idea that God needs worshippers seems to be the sort of thing that Michael's arguments would address.

I think the question really is, 'what does perfection mean?' Why is it that we need to think that a perfect God in a timeless state could never be a God of love who chooses to create, out of sheer grace, a world where there is beauty and goodness, and freedom? I believe that God desires that others enjoy the wonder of life, of love, of service, of joy. It is His nature (something Greek philosophy did not include in its pondering, to any large extent) to love. This is also the scandal of Christian faith.

God made time. God made a universe. God enters that universe. From the Beginning, He comes and goes (see Adam and Eve where God comes at the cool of  the day and cries out, "Where are you?") From the beginning God has chosen to limit Himself (WITHIN CREATION) as part of the cost of this love. To be in relationship with creation has cost God something. The cross is no accident, it is a revelation of what it means to be God in relationship with a limited, concrete, material, in-time creation.

But Michael's point, "God does not need" is vital to remember. God does not need us. Ever. Yet He made us, because He is love. The psalmist asks, "What is man that you should care for him?" What, in deed?
We are privileged to know, love and serve God. We are invited into relationship with an Infinite and Perfect Being. We are even allowed to blog about Him (and not be smote!). But in the midst of all the speculation and thinking we must stop to pray, to praise, to love and to serve. I am going to do that now.

Response to Query on God and Time 2

Continuing on Michael's comments:

Michael's fourth point is that IF God does not already know the future, then all He has is "educated guesses" about the future. I do not think this is a problem. Recall yesterday we pointed out that God's knowledge is beyond our understanding. He is not simply the smartest guy you'll ever meet; His intellectual insights are not just different in degree from ours but also different in kind. The human insight into the future (the capacity to predict) can be pretty accurate. Read some of the recent findings in the field of Economics. Humans are predictably irrational as one author has boldly written. We can "know" the future without having seen it, in many cases. Once, as a child, I poured salt into water. My mother told me that I would not like it, and she was right. She was also right about Underwoods Deviled Ham. In fact, there were countless times that I wanted something and she told me that I would not like it and she was right. So the future is NOT an impenetrable thing. We can project with some accuracy.

God's insights are based on an amount of data which we cannot imagine. He probably sees endless possibilities. I find it impossible to think and write about. But there are millions and billions of 'moving parts' involved in creating the future. Quantum Physics postulates an eternal number of parallel universes springing out of the possibilities. Mind boggling stuff there. At any rate, because God can make predicitons about the future (based on His knowledge of the present and past) and those predictions are often spot on we can assume that He is trustworthy. This is, I think, the reason why there are so many biblical quotes about God knowing the future. He can be confident in saying what will happen. It is why things often happen in accord with those words.

Some may notice that I said "often" rather than always. One disturbing aspect of the OT is that things do not always end up happening the way a prophet says that they will. This is a gnawing, worrisome aspect of Bible study. One way to deal with it is to simply place it under the rubric of "not yet, in the future." I think this is accurate, but I do not think it is a fair reading of  the text. I believe that there are times where the promises do not materialize for other reasons. Some day God will recreate all things (after the final judgment) and all will be in accord with His promises. Right now, our role as co-creator of the future impacts how things turn out. [Alert: God could do it differently but has chosen not to!] Many unfulfilled promises will be fulfilled once God changes things.

I am not sure how it will all come to pass. The nature of time is much more complex (circularity for example) than we can know. In the end, it is each of us struggling to make sense of things, here and now, and using them as a basis for trusting (or not) that there is a God and that that God means us well. Reflecting on things beyond our capacity reminds us why God is awesome and worthy of praise!

Response to Query on God and Time 1

I want to thank Michael for an extensive response to my last blog post. I will respond to him for sake of further clarification. I am not a specialist and think some of what I say will turn out to be faulty. But it is fun and worthwhile to think about such things, if for no other reason than they reveal how little we know, which can open us to worship.

I quote from Michael here, then respond below: "I noted this line of thought in your presentation last night and wanted to ask you about it. Here is what I am wondering: if God does not know the future, wouldn't we have to also say the following: 1. That God is as much inside the flow of time as we are?"

My response. We need to be careful about our God talk. One approach many theologian embrace is to differentiate between what is known as ontological (God's being and nature) and economic (from the Greek oikonomia referring to the economy of salvation, i.e., how God works among us). While this is not the only way to approach God talk, it is helpful.

Who is God? How does God work? What can God do and not do? etc. These kind of questions are fodder for speculative theology and philosophy (and Physics). The qualities of God are based on our human minds' capacity to understand and express something about the eternal God. Hence, the idea of God contains within it a recognition that God is outside of time (He supercedes all things). Michael asks a valid question, but he is in the realm of onotolgy and God's inherent qualities. However, once we have identitied qualities of God (all knowing, all powerful, outside time, etc.) the next question is 'how does this perfect God deal with the world?'

That is the realm of theological "economics" (how things work, not money!) A fundamental teaching of Christianity is incarnation. Incarnation is based on kenosis, or self emptying. (cf Paul/Phillipians:Though He was in the form of God He did not deem equality with God something to be grasped, rather he EMPTIED Himself and took on the form of a slave). First rule of Christology, Jesus is HUMAN and DIVINE. The Word became Flesh. Baby Jesus is a real baby, not God faking like He is a baby. Jesus' self described limitations, including ignorance, are a result of His humanity.

My question is, once God creates a universe, does He also have to, in some ways, "empty Himself" in order to interact with that universe? I would say 'yes.' God communicates through the prophets, hence human language is employed, or images, or other concrete things. We do not experience all of God, but a diminished "piece" (to speak metaphorically). In fact, the OT makes it clear, "No one can see God and live." (So God let Moses glimpse His backside; perhaps another metaphor?). My question is this, "Does God enter time to engage His creation, and, if so, in the process of self emptying, does He enter into Time as we know it? This is a choice of God, so it tells us something about Him (sacrifical Love) but also hides something (We encounter God in a diminished form).

If Almighty God is working with us in this time and place, then is it possible that Time is real even for God at those moments? If time is real, then IF the future is unformed, THEN there is a sense in which God would not know every detail about every future event.

[Now a disclaimer: when I have the temerity and audacity to talk about God knowing, I am way above my pay grade. Goodnesss gracious how can any person imagine a Being Who simultaneously can know about every event in the entire cosmos???? With respect to that gap (between what I can understand and reality) it is tempting to just shut my mouth and write about Albert Pujols! However, to never broach the subject, even if out of humility, could lead one to decide talk of God is not important. So we soldier on!]

My point being, we need to differentiate between what God can do (in theory) and what God is able to do in light of the creation He has formed and the rules of that creation. It is fair to say, "God cannot..." in the second sense without negating "God can" if He had chosen to make a different kind of creation.

That, to me is the key issue. Not what God is or can do, but what God IS DOING in the real world/universe which He constructed and in which He is lovingly redeeming all things.

Michael continues: 2. That "eternal" wouldn't mean he transcends or contains time in some way but only that he is longer-lasting than anything or anyone else--that he was simply here earlier and could remain longer than everything else in creation? 3. That if this is the case, he could not have created time, since he is inside it like everything else?
In light of what I have said above, the second point is mute. God is eternal and it means more than really old. And God can create time from outside BUT choose to enter it. The question is, once God enters time, what happens. IF the future is not already laid out like unread chapters of a novel, then the blank pages would still need to be written. God, having enterred into time, has give us co-authorship responsibility. He continues to work in and through and with us. But we still share in the creative process and until we act the future is unknown (and unknowable) because it does not exist already, it has not yet happened.

Okay, I am off to hospital visits. I hope these reflections are of some use. I will engage Michael's other points in days ahead.

What is status of 'the future'?

Got an email from a theology classmate about yesterday's blog. In light of his input I wanted to explain my beliefs a bit more.

Yesterday in Bible study we read the final chapter of 2 Kings. In it, the epic journey of God's People lies in ruins. The descendents of the slaves freed from Pharaoh's cruel hands entered the Promised Land with a covenant promse from God. "If you obey, I will prosper you; if you disobey and act like the former occupants (Caananites, etc.) then I will treat you as I treated them and wipe you off the face of the map."

2 Kings ends with a small remnant of Jews headed back to Egypt. The journey has come full circle. The Kingdom of Israel is no more. The Davidic monarchy is in exile, under the thumb of the Babylonian king, never to rule again. The rich land is now in the possession of another Empire. The promise has been kept, a promise of destruction for sin.

The book of Jeremiah, ironically, contains much more detail and information. Chapters 24 and 25 (of 2 Kings) are found, in toto, in the book of Jeremiah. They seemed to have been lifted and copied there. Or perhaps, whoever penned the book of Jeremiah also penned 2 Kings? [I assume it was a group process, but I am not ancient scholar so its best I not embarass myself!] At any rate, in Jeremiah, God makes an offer. The remnant is invited to remain in the land, to live there faithfully, under the rule of the Babylonian King. If the people do so, says Jeremiah, they will be blessed. However, the decision to go to Egypt will be doom. That decision will result in destruction, even annihilation. The people will be no more.

Consistent with the ongoing narrative (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings) the people declare that whatever God says they will do. The reader is weary hearing this empty pledge again and again. God also has grown weary! No sooner do the people make the declaration of obedience then they reject the words of Jeremiah and decide to go off to Egypt; never to be heard from again in the Biblical literature.

God offers the people a choice. Their choice will create (or better, co-create with GOD) a future. In Deuteronomy God says, "I offer you Life of Death, choose Life." Some claim that God has not really made such an offer. He knows what the people will do, He knows what will happen, in some real sense, they tell us, God is the author of their decision. In such a view, the narrative is, at some level, a sham. God's words are devoid of meaning in any normal sense. His offer is not an offer at all, because in the end His choice is to lead the people to destruction. [and I am very aware that there are verses throughout the OT which fits this model] However, I think that God is not playing games. I believe the offer is real. I believe that the people of Judah stand at a crossroads. I believe that two opportunities lie before them, two genuine options. I believe that the choice can be made for either.

I also believe that God has granted humans 'dominion' in His creation. He has made a world where His own divine perogatives are somehow diminished and withdrawn. God is not present, from the begining of Genesis, all the time. He comes and goes. He has created an empty space, a place where humans can live and choose. That is how love is possible, after all (and I have written on this in the past). Puppets cannot love, even if the puppet master makes them say and do things which sound and look like love. Because God is not controlling (by His own choice) every detail of every event (He could if He wanted to but chooses not to for the greater good of His creation); therefore, we live in a world where every detail of the future is not cast in stone. God still has a plan, a final destination, in mind. God is still at work, most often in a clandestine manner, barely discernable for those who seek Him, totally hidden from those who do not. So God is present and active, but He is also absent and removed. After all how could he intervene if He is already controllling everything?

The key point, as I see it (and I am no great intellect so this may be something I should not even dare to address) is that the future is yet to be written. The choices made and the events which take place inform the future possibilities. The future is fluid but God is ever shaping it into the desired outcomes (i.e., Salvation, Justice, Peace, etc.) which He seeks. Some day He plans to bring it to a close.

Our freedom can work in league with our Heavenly Father, or we can choose to oppose Him. In the end, we are held accountable for our decisions and our behaviors. Within the confines of time, there is a sense in which 'we will just have to see what happens.' Yet, we can still be confident that God will find a way to achieve His intended goals. It is not necessary for Him to micromanage every detail in order to make that happen. The cost of human freedom is manifest in the cross. Literally, loving us is killing God! Yet, He has the power to overcome sin and death (resurrection) so Life conquers Death. That is why we can have hope.

God's Desire

Having reflected on 2 Peter last week from Morning Prayer, I was surprised to see the same reading, though expanded, in our Sunday lectionary. In teh additional verses, Peter points out that time is relative. What seems like a long time to us, is not experienced in the same way by God. He makes the point rather dramatically, "for God a thousand years are like a day and a day is like a thousand years." This is the foundation of his response to the 'scoffers' who mock the Christian belief that the Day of the Lord is near.

That mocking continues into our own day. It has teeth. It is not a question which I can easily brush away. Peter's explanation, that "God is not slow, He is patient" really does address the issue of the long delay. It also raises another issue, one which my kids asked me at dinner a few nights ago. Does God know the future?

I think there are certainly places in the Bible where that is implied and in some cases claimed. However, there is a difference between predicting the future and knowing the future. I am able, based on my insights, to predict accurately any number of things when dealing with my family or friends. I know how most people act in certain situations, so I can predict that if there is a large explosion in the Mall, many people will run away. Predictions are based on solid information. It is possible to read the Scriptures and see God is doing just that. He knows people's hearts so He is making accurate predictions about what they will do next. [NOTE: I say this may be what is going on]

The reason why I am even asking these things is because I am unclear that the future "exists." As a child, I thought of life as a movie (on a projector, remember I am old). One reel contained all the past. This is the stuff that we have already seen. The other reel was the future. It had not been seen yet, but it was already there ready to be seen at some future point. The present was the individual scenes being projected on the screen. Each brief moment  flashes before us after having been 'stored' in the future as it heads to be 'stored' in the past. In such a view, all times are the same (past, present, future) in that they are all on the film. BUT, what if the future is blank? What if it is like an improvisation that is shaped by the past/present, but has not already been set? what if the present is constructed on the spot?

This question may seem silly, but it is important. If the future does not already exist as something which we are just waiting to see, then God may not know the future. Not because of any lack in God, but because there is no future to know! He would have ideas about what will happen, based on all He does know, but He would also be open to surprises as things turn out better (or worse) than expected. In other words, sometimes things work out differently than expected. [In my reading of Genesis the last weeks, there are places where God has regrets about creating humans. This is certainly difficult to reconcile with most explanations of an all knowing God. What is the revelation here? Perhaps God thought we would be better than we ended up being? Is that a problem for faith and worship?]

So God's plan to intervene in the world in the final judgment is part of the future, but maybe the time and place has yet to be determined. Maybe God is making decisions each day about the future based on what is going on here and now. Perhaps the Lord planned to end the whole thing soon after Jesus, but because of His desire ("as Peter writes, "not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance") for all to be saved He keeps putting it off?

Many years ago I taught with a woman who had suffered financially because of her decision to teach in a Roman Catholic school. Each year she told me,"I really have to leave, I have to make more money, but I do not want to leave until this class graduates." We would laugh that each year a new class became the one she wanted to wait for! Is Peter telling us that God is doing the same thing?

Perhaps such thoughts are too sublime for me to contemplate. I do think it is worth a thought or two, however. IF the creation is a work in process, a situation where God is constantly engaged with us, allowing us to share in creating the future, then perhaps we have a bigger part to play then we realize. It means our lives have value and our choices have impact. It means we need to pray more for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It also means we actively shape (with God) our future.

Hey Jude

There are few books of the Bible as short and pointed as Jude. It is interesting for lots of reasons. One has to do with the discussion of authorship. Who is Jude? Who is the James which he identifies as his brother? Like most ancient literature numerous theories abound. Some argue that the letter is from a later time period and engages in the common practice of pseudonymity (writing in the name of a famous figure from the past to give the writing more authority). While disturbing to a contemporary mind (we tend to ignore that lots of books have ghost writers, that politicians have speech and letter writers, that bosses have secretaries, etc.) in ancient times many books are obviously written using this literary device.

Others think Jude actually wrote the letter and that James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the church in Jerusalem, is his actual brother. A very good case can be made for that position. In such a case, this letter is quite amazing.

Scholarly debates about time and place and authorship are always, at best, unprovable theories, however compelling and reasonable. With that in mind, the more significant reason to read Jude is the content of the letter. Jude is concerned both with doctrine and behavior. In many circles one is led to believe that doctrine is a barrier to real faith (does this drive the 'spiritual not religious' crowd?) and that Christians ought to pay little heed to dogmas and teaching. It is telling that even in the very first group of Jesus' followers there were some who no doubt adopted such an approach. The letter of Jude is a stunning rejection of such a position. In large part this is because, as Jude makes crystal clear, doctrine produces behavior. Much of the current debate in my Episcopal church is very much about doctrine and morals/behavior. The traditional beliefs, expressed succintly by Jude, are under attack.

Jude says that he is writing to those who are called, who love God and are kept by Jesus. This threefold identification (so often the Bible writes in threes) remains a wonderful description of the church today. God initiates things, we respond, hence the term 'called.' The fundamental relationship with God is love. Jesus says that summarizes the law: Love God. If we are called to love, God's response, in Christ, is to save. The image of Jesus 'keeping' [safe] His children is best expressed in the Good Shepherd. We are in His care, this gives us hope, especially when it feels we are in danger.

Jude is frustrated, he wants to write about the shared salvation he enjoys with this church. He wants to accent the positive, but circumstances make it impossible. There are men, fake Christians, who have 'snuck in' and seek to mislead the church. His words resonate in our own time. "They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

Wow!!!!! Reading these words this morning, my stomach gave a twist. Such words cannot be spoken in the "Church of Toleration and All-Things-New." Such words are derided as hateful and judgmental. Yet, they are spoke by someone recognized in the early church as speaking with apostolic authority. Someone closely related to the first bishop of Jerusalem and related to the Lord Jesus Himself. Is it possible that such a person had so terribly misunderstood the Savior that he wrote in error? Is it possible such writings were collected and revered by evil men seeking to oppress and harm others, people who hijacked the church in the earliest times and led it, in error, to say the opposite of what Jesus intended? I think not. These words, harsh as they are, are a reflection of the mind and heart of Jesus, they are revelation of God Almighty Himself.

There are many who being nicer-than-God reject the unique status of Jesus. They say things like "He is our way to God" or "He is a way, but God has other ways." Many say Jesus is a great man and teacher, but merely that. They deny Jesus our ONLY sovereign and Lord. What was true from the beginning is true now. Inside the church there are those who do not believe.

There are many who being "more-up-to-date-and-kinder" would claim that Jesus means freedom. They talk about "advances" in understanding and advocate an "improved" morality. In the end, it sounds like license, the same problem Jude addresses almost two thousand years ago.

Yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. As much as many of us would love to withdraw from the debates, God's Word just draws us back in. We need to be aware that the godless have always been among us, that those who deny Jesus or 'reform' (de-form) morality through license wil always be with us. True Freedom is freedom to worship Jesus and live in obedience. The call of God, the call to love, can and will transform us into His image. Grace leads to righteousness, holiness and obedience. And God provides the means in Christ.

Peter's second letter, read at morning prayer today, really expresses most wonderfully the spirituality of 'advent people' which we have looked at this week. As I read and prayed over these words today I was keenly aware that this text has probably been the basis of my own thoughts and beliefs about which I have written lately.

Peter begins by saying the day will come like a thief in the night. The obvious reference to Jesus' own words are a reminder that there is an unknown quality to the end. In every age the (evil) behaviors and the (stressful) conditions are present which make it a possibility that "this is it." However, even if possible, the actual event will come quickly and at a time we do not expect.

The judgment will be consumptive. Peter uses the image of destructive fire which will lay all things bare. God's piercing glance will see all and know all. The use of fire reminds one of the concept of purging purification/judgment after death embraced by some Christians.

Peter then provides a rhetorical question which very much demands an answer: Since everything is going to be burned up and destroyed, how then should we live? In our own times the word "perspective" is used to summarize this question. Keeping things in perspective means to measure the value of things. Peter asks us if we are using all our energies to pursue things which are destined to pass away. One hears echoes of Isaiah's lament, "Why work for food that does not satisfy? for drink which does not quench thirst?"

He then provides his answer in the form of an exhortation: you ought to live godly and holy lives. That is the advent spirituality. The holy and godly life puts us at odds with the natural inclinations which dictate most of our values and behaviors. To be shaped by God values is to be transformed.

Peter says such a way of life directs our attention to "that day" when God establishes His reign. More interesting, to me, is Peter says it will also speed its coming. The Greek word means to long for and to speed. Translations made by experts translate it either way. One choice is the word 'hasten' which can contain both senses. I often say (because I believe) that the Lord is waiting until the earth reaches critical mass in its desire for the Kingdom. This may be wrong. Many would say I am an idiot to claim such a thing. Yet, I do think there is a theme of God drawing near to those who long for Him and withdrawing from those who do not. Is it not possible that the church's role in the world is to cry out "Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!"? That word, maranatha, is Aramaic and is found in the first language of the church. The words were probably the initial prayer of the first believers. They longed for Jesus (friend, teacher, rabbi, Master, Lord) from a position of intimacy. We are numbered among those second generation Christians who (somewhere in the Bible) are told, "though you do not know Him, you love Him." We have a "faith like" theirs, without the initial enfleshed companionship which they enjoyed.

The Advent spirituality is a church, united in hunger for the Lord, aware of the limits of this world and its destiny, aware of the kind of people that they need to be. It is a holy church and godly. It cries out for the Kingdom and in its prayer and its actions it not only longs for, but actually motivates the coming of the Kingdom. Such a church is needed in dark times. It is the perfect church for today!

Advent Spirituality 2

More on waiting.

As most people know, we have lots of doctor appointments and some extra worries about our baby. There is much we do not know about his development. We have to "wait and see".

On the one hand, all of us have unknown futures, so in reality we must all wait and see. I am keenly aware that his sister and brother, both vibrant, healthy, bright, beautiful children have an equally unknown future. Illness or accident could transform them in a moment into a much different type of person. I have memories of my parents, both struck down as young adults with serious medical issues. Heart disease, cancer and assorted maladies twisted them and finally took them from the earth at a relatively early age. I was at a parish party, talking and laughing with one of my dearest friends a couple of years ago. A healthy, strong man, a few hours his heart stopped. So, yes, life is uncertain. I get it, still....

On the other hand, there is a difference about an unknown future and waiting to find out how things will turn out. When a doctor says "maybe", waiting for the results is different than the regular unknown. Uncertainty feels different when it has been identified as a possiblity.

Advent waiting should be like that. We have been told that Jesus may be back today. No one knows (except the Father). There is a difference in waiting for His return and wondering what the future will  be. We know, to some extent, that the future will be under His Kingship. We know that Justice, Righteousness, Peace, Joy, Love are all part of that future. We know that living in His Kingdom will be a gift, a grace, a blessing. We cannot earn it. We also know that living in His Kingdom will take a different skill set. We will have to be changed, all of us (even and especially Christians). Our values will  need to be reordered. We will need to learn obedience and service. We will need to worship more and complain less. So there is much effort to extend to become the kind of people we need to be.

Advent waiting is a time to try on those virtues. It is a time to be shaped today for the future glory; a time to become today what we need to  be to live in that tomorrow. Advent is not Lent, but this year I have added some "mini-Lenten" disciplines to my Advent. Little 'fastings' which will sharpen my awareness that it is not Christmas season and it is a time to hunger for His return. I suggest increased Scripture reading (I am in Genesis and marveling, once again, at the amazing stories in the Torah). I suggest some small "fasting' from something. Heighten the awareness. Sharpen the desire for Jesus' return to reign. Focus on, desire, hunger for the divine consumation. Maybe if we all prayed more, "Come Lord Jesus!" this year He would hear our prayer and come among us as Lord and King! That would be the best Christmas ever!

Advent Spirituality

I want to follow up on the Advent Theme. "Waiting" is a major theme of the OT and NT.  ('Watch' occurs 61x and 'wait' 91x in the New King James Version) It is a reminder that it is God Who makes the definitve act of salvation. We look toward that day, but waiting and watching are not passive, they are actions.

One of the hardest things for Christians to talk about is Christian behavior in relationship to God. This is especially true in the post-Augustine, post-Reformation Western church. The emphasis on God's activity sometimes is supplemented by a total disdain for human acts (refered to disparagingly as 'works'). Biblical verses like the one from Isaiah 64:1-9 this Sunday ["all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth"] illustrate this position well. "See," we are told, "the best we can do is garbage."

I am easily persuaded by such a position. Philosophically, I am keenly attuned to the idea that God's ultimate perfection is unbridgable, and in comparison to His perfect Goodness and Beauty all we have to offer is like garbage. The problem is, of course, at some point a thinking person becomes aware that "if the best I offer to God is garbage, then what difference does it make?" There is a reason why we generally make relative assessments. If a second grader was graded relative to the expectations of a PhD program, then probably the smartest kids would be getting 15% or so. Everyone would have a big, fat 'F' and the smartest kids would be told that they do not measure up. True, accurate and totally unhelpful. It is much better to grade them based on expectations of eight year olds. When a Christian [e.g., me and you] internalizes the belief that all our righteous deeds are a filthy rag, how long is it until one stops trying?

Without getting too deep into the exegesis of Isaiah, what he is saying  here is not a universal declaration that we are incapable of ever pleasing God. He is certainly not saying that good and bad deeds are all the same. He is not exhorting ancient Israel to give up trying to please God. What he is saying, and it is important, is that Israel's sin has produced desolation. That the sin is killing her. That God alone is the hope for deliverance.

Waiting and watching are active. Staying alert, scanning the horizon, living in preparation for the coming visitation is active. We are not passively laying around. We are active. Advent is active. It is focused. It is disciple (pray, study, Bible) and it is apostle (preach, teach, heal, exorcise), it is pasoral (counsel, feed hungry, provide for needy) and it is community centered (worship and work together). Those who wait for the Lord are very busy, it is just that the busyness is focused on the right things. And the busyness is directed to welcoming the Savior Lord.

If I can delight in the smiles of a six month old child, I imagine God can delight in the "righteous deeds" of His children. God does not need us, true, but He loves us. We have little to offer Him besides our love. And it seems to be the case that that is exactly what He wants. He is a Father (Isaiah also makes that point Sunday!) I know something about being a Father. I have art work on my desk which my kds made some years ago. No museum would have them, but I would not trade them for a Van Gogh! They are beautiful to me because of who made them! So compared to God we may be worth nothing, but He treasures us none the less. Plenty of reason to think that what we do matters. Plenty of reason to make the Advent season central to our spiritual discipline in the coming weeks.

Happy New Year!

It is New Year's Eve and everyone is preparing to celebrate, or maybe not. Actually, the changeover to a new liturgical year is probably something that few people pay much mind. Many Christians have rejected liturgy and so they do not even know it exists. Most liturgical Christians are only mildly invested in the calendar, so though they might know it is Advent, they really do not think through the ramifications of a new year.

At Morning Prayer this morning I read about Jesus enterring the city, with a blind man (Bartimaeus) crying out for mercy. Jesus asked him, "What would you like me to do?" The man said, "I want to see." That is the last image of the year past, for me, asking Jesus to heal me so I can see.

Sitting here at my desk with tri-focals on my nose I have some awareness of how poorly I see. I am also aware that there is a deeper, spiritual meaning to the story. Jesus is going to meet His doom (His destiny). He will be confronted by any number of blind people in the course of His trial and suffering. That is the way things happen here on planet earth. Blind people run the show. In the end, we are all blind, that is why we need Jesus.

Lately I have run across several articles by economists who are writing about the influences on human decision making. Their point is that we make lots of bad choices for lots of bad reasons. That fact correlates to the Gospel message. We need deliverance and are incapable of doing it for ourselves. That is why political movements fail, in the end. New leadership is blind, too.

Advent points us toward the hope of salvation. Today's readings speak about waiting. There is a deliverance coming our way, from God. We wait for it. I will preach on what that waiting looks like, how one waits faithfully. But I wanted, prior to that, to reflect upon the new beginning. We will read Mark's Gospel. We will begin by looking at The Day of Deliverance, then shift our gaze to the Birth of the Messiah. Soon, baby Jesus will be leading us through Lent to His passion and death. Then Pentecost and the long season which follows. And in a year, we will begin the cycle again.

Each new year is part of the cycle and a reminder that some day all will be new. That is the Good News. Someday it will all be new. In the meantime, we are to live as people who trust in His deliverance and wait for it with patience and love. Keep attuned to the season, it will shape you.

Thanksgiving

This is my favorite church service of the year. Fifty people gathered to celebrate eucharist (thanksgiving). No one had to be there. It is not a feast day. It is not a Sunday. It is not a holy day. There is no obligation to come at all. You only come because you want to be there. You only show  up because you just gotta say "Thanks, Father!"

As the people walked up for communion it struck me that this is the most wonderful 'Thanksgiving Day Parade.' No floats. No balloons. No marching band. No celebrities. Just believers, filing up, kneeling, extending their hands and receiving the Living Bread, the Bread of Heaven, the Food of Salvation, the Body and Blood of Christ.

What makes thanks possible? Awareness. We need to pause and ponder. Be aware. A spirit of gratitude thrives in a heart freed from a dark spirit of entitlement. It is hard to be grateful when you then think you deserve all you have and more. It is hard to realize the gift and the grace when you are making demands. I am not an amazingly thankful person. I try to be. Somedays I say the 'hundred thank yous' prayer; where you just identify everything you take for granted and tell God thank you. But even as I do it, my heart does not sore and my spirit does not sing. It is more a discipline, an effort to be thankful than a spontaneous outpouring of a man who truly knows how blessed he is.

I do not know how to be that man. I do not know how to be someone so full of gratitude. I think it is because I assume things. I have grown used to abundance and ease. Not to say I am never thankful. Just that it is not the hallmark of my life. People do not meet me and say, "Wow, that is one exhuberantly thankful guy!"

Perhaps that is part of the struggle here in the fallen world. I hop to say thank you pleases God. I am thankful that I am aware of the imortance of gratitude. I am thankful to have a day where I can practice saying thanks to God.
Thank you for reading this blog. I hope it blesses you and inspires you to thank God for something!

Facing Reality on Church Debates

I was invited to join an Anglican Forum on Facebook. I receive e-mails on postings which I can read without going to the acutal site. Truth is I do not have time to visit the site. Recently I noticed several comments to the effect that the "tone was combative" and some people have left the forum. This led me to actually go there and look at it a bit. [Our church (Anglican) is torn between warring factions in the social wars. The Episcopal Church is dominated by Liberals. The break away Anglican churches (in America) are Conservative.]

I have plenty of experience with the debates, I served as one of the (minority) voices for the Conservative views on a discussion forum for the Episcopal Church in 2002-2003. The 'debates' are usually useless. Most people have made up their minds so it often times becomes a screaming contest. Many of the issues include a great deal of personal emotional baggage (as one guy wrote me "you are saying that I am...") so it is hard to make rational discussion happen. The culture wars in politics are reflected in much of the arguments and there is the same level of anger and disdain as we see in the culture wars. The only thing I try to remember is vitriol has long been a major component of all debate for all time. There has never been a golden age of respectful discussion and disagreement.

While I continue to hold the traditional Christian faith, I generally do not engage the Liberals in our wider church. They have the power and they are not in a discussing mood much of the time. I have, from time to time, engaged youunger clergy which has been fruitful. Being one of the only guys left, I am less intimidating. There is value in having a dissenting voice. I try to be reasoned and open in listening. I try to be respectful. I do not compromise on those things which are beyond compromise. I assume others will act on their principles as well.

Another thing with which I deal is the issue of 'where to draw the line'? I wrote several blogs on other issues (Bible, sacraments, etc.) which mean more to me than some of the current debate topics. There are lots of things about which we cannot agree, yet have to live together. Some Conservatives call me a sell out. I have some snappy responses, but in the end, but why waste breath arguing? God will judge me. I am worried enough about Him, why bother with fallible human judgments?

Personally, I have concerns about my baby. I pray for him alot. First off, that he will be holy, next, for his health. I worry about my other kids, too. It is a reminder that most people are also tied up in their own lives. Professionally, I counsel people dealing with death, divorce, job loss, illness. I try to pastor them in their here and now. Few of them really care about the "big issues" pulling the church apart on an ongoing, day-to-day basis. I am focused on leading my parish into the heart of God and caring for their needs. I am focused on prayer, worship, study, evangelism, and service. I am trying to be a good dad in the hours that remain each day. Not much left for debating about gay marriage or whatever the next big issue is. Not much energy left to defend my "outdated beliefs" or serve as "orthodoxy sheriff." I am not saying I won't engage if asked. I certainly write about things which are controversial. I just do not go out looking for trouble.

I would rather teach people to pray and read the Bible, involve themselves in the local parish to preach Jesus' Kingdom and serve others. I would rather help people to form loving community. If someone rejects my leadership because I am not politically correct or engaged in the latest Liberal action plan, so be it. It hurts, lots of people with whom I thought I had a close relationship have gotten mad and left, but I will survive. They do not like me and they can find peace elsewhere. God, in the end, is The Judge. It is better that way.

words and actions

I saw an interesting political debate which reflects well the Christian challenge. A group of rich people were advocating higher taxes on the rich. A reporter asks them to donate to a fund for the government, which the same people refused to do. The stark contrast was stunning. People unwilling to freely give of their own volition were committed to taking from others.

The tax system is set up in a way that we can take deductions. People who feel taxes are too low or that they make too much money are free to not take the deductions to which they are entitled. That would be an act of integrity. Yet, those people seem to be more than happy to take their deductions. Seems that this is inconsistent.

When I was in Europe, I met a German priest who explained that the government taxed people and then distributed those tax dollars to churches which the people identified. It produced a strained relationship between people and church. It also meant that the "collection" was nothing of the sort. In my parish, we have two collections in many times of the year. One is the normal collection for parish operations. The other is a special collection for 'outreach' (during Lent/Easter and Advent/Christmas). Each person decides to give as they choose. Every cent we receive is a gift to God. We get enough to run our parish and spend the other half of our money on the needs of others. Generosity can be manifest in freedom!

I do not know what the fair rate for taxes is. The discussion on that needs to take place. What I do know, is people who do not do something cheerfuly of their own free will ought not clamor for others to do the same. I say let the tax advocates lead by example. Let them inspire others by their remarkable generosity. Let them do the very thing which is in their power to do. Talk is cheep.

In the church, we face the same challenge. The parish must be a place of radical service to the poor and needy. It must proclaim the Gospel, bringing the light of Jesus into a dark world. We must embrace His Way (the cross). We ought not spend a great deal of time telling other people what they should do. Instead, we must let our example speak for us. The great divides in America are based on abuse of power. The Left is every bit as much at fault as the Right. I know that when someone does not lead by example, it irritates me. That is important to remember as I seek to preach Jesus and lead others in faith to His Father.

Children and Kingdom

We read Matthew 18:1ff in Morning Prayer. I wrestled with these words, again, as I tried to understand what it means for me as a preacher and practioner. Matthew has reframed the discussion in a much more positive light. In the parallels (Mark 9:33 & Lk 9:46), the disciples are arguing about "who is the greatest." When Jesus asks what is going on, they are embarassed and Jesus uses it as a teaching time about service. As I recall from preaching Mark a few years ago, there are several chapters full of the recurring theme of Jesus explaining about service (and His own death) and the apostles not getting it. In Mark's Gospel, the apostles are bone heads.

Matthew has taken the teaching in a different direction. [Once again, I remind you that I believe that the Gospel writers are trying to convey the truth about Jesus as accurately as possible, not recollect an isolated event in the most accurate detail possible. The words of Jesus were remembered, sometimes with no context. Stories of Jesus were told and retold. The authors fuse together various recollections in an effort to display for us an accurate picture of Jesus.] In Matthew's account, the central feature is a direct question to Jesus: "Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

Matthew has demonstrated his concern that we understand Jesus' position on status over and again in his gospel. You are to call no one father, you are to call no one teacher, you are to call no one rabbi (great one). The greatest among you will be one who serves. [John's Gospel has that latter point placed at the Last Supper where Jesus washes the feet of His followers.] Service, especially the self sacrifice on the cross, is a central component of Jesus' self understanding and it is a vital part of His defintion of a disciple. Matthew takes great pains to make that clear to his readers.

"Unless you turn and become like little children," Jesus warns, "you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

In Jesus' day, children were held in low esteem. To be like a child is not a compliment. There was no fantasy that children are sweet and innocent and pure. Jesus is talking about people of low status; the equivalent of a slave/servant. While Christians give lip service to such, we rarely embrace it as a way of life. This is why the reading is so hard. It talks about children (in my culture a sweet thing) but it gives a harsh message (self denial and negation). The message gets harsher when Jesus says (employing hyperbole), "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Gross and graphic, Jesus spells out, from another angle, the demands of discipleship and the cost of faith. No mere cognitive assent here; a radical, life altering, complete makeover is demanded.

I prayed that I would be a child. I prayed that I would be in the kingdom. Yet the pull of status and comfort are strong. Being a converted Christian is an ongoing struggle. Fortunately, Jesus is with us, still teaching, still warning, still reminding through the Word. Still comforting, still forgiving, still healing in the Sacraments. Still loving, still embracing, still renewing in the Church. Still giving life and hope, in the Spirit!

Revelation 21

Still reflecting on yesterday's reading. It is very familiar because it is so often used at funerals. In focusing on a future with God (one recalls emmanuel- God is with us) there are parallels to the Temple. In the OT, the Temple was the place where God's Name resided. It was a place of encounter and sacrifice. For a Catholic, the notion of sacred space is foundational to our faith. I still remember traveling in Switzerland and seeing the churches there. While the shell remained familiar to me, the stripped down interiors were so stark as to be off-putting (for me). [Of course, in fairness, I am sure a Protestant would be disgusted by the interiors of many Catholic churches.] While my time in the Epsicopal church has decreased some of my earlier inclinations, and releationships with low church Evangelicals has gotten me used to meeting hall/auditorium churches, there is still something about sacred space which draws me.

I read an article from the Internetmonk (someone sent it to me in e-mail) yesterday. The author, dead for some time now, had written about the hunger among many Evangelicals for something more than "worshiptainment." The article was several years old, but it is something I have heard about in many quarters. Then I stumbled across a Protestant church historian's blog which  pointed out some of what has been lost by Christians since the Middle Ages. The idea of God in our world, sacraments, sacred space...

Reflecting on Revelation 21 in light of those articles reminds me that God is among us, now. The flat world of scientism is deadening. I miss the world of my childhood which was chock full of miracles and The Presence. On the other hand, we are not yet at the time when "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, death will be no more, mourning  and crying and pain will be no more." So that is the reminder that this world, while a sacramental of God, is not in its final form. The holy space is not yet the Kingdom in its fullness.

It is hard to live in such tension. To say God is everywhere may be sound theology but in a secularized culture like ours it leads to decayed spirituality. On the other hand, sacred spaces can become "magical" in the minds of believers. In a healthy expression, time and place set aside for God opens us to the hunger for a greater fullness. I can pray anywhere, but there is something different about being in a space consecrated to God and intentionally set aside for His worship. Experiences in such "intensified awareness zones" makes us more attuned to God in unexpected places. We are flesh and blood, mind and soul and body. Place matters. Matter matters!!! God has created such a world and in and through it we encounter Him each day, if we so choose. I am now going into our church to pray. I pray for you. I pray for His Kingdom to come, today!

Apocalyptic Reflections

It is 'that' season of the church, although most people do not know it. The morning readings are from the Apocalypse of John. The end of the liturgical year is fast approaching. The Sunday Gospels have been looking at the last things. Parables of waiting, parables of judgment, parables which draw our attention to the broader horizon.

The last two mornings I have been hit by the power of the chapters from the Apocalypse. Revelation 20:12 "And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books" is stunning in its simplicity and its sublimity. Thinking about facing God and being held accountable for everything in our lives is frightening. Last week I celebrated two funeral services. In those services we pray God's mercy on the departed. If we are going to be judged, then praying for mercy is a very good idea. In my prayer time I pondered my life. As the years stack up, so do the multitude of sins. I think of all the things written in my 'book' and I think of God's face as He recounts to me all that I have done.

Yesterday in the gymn I met a man who seems pretty optimistic about it all. He told me that he was mad at the minister at his church whose last sermon was about parents not bringing their children to church. The minister said it was a bad thing, this fellow seemed to think it was not so bad. He shared with me that he used his Sunday to coach his kids teams and spend family time. I listened, as I often do when people I do not know share their opinions. I am thinking there was little I was going to say to convince this fellow that church was part of the deal. He told me, "if you do half the stuff I do, when it comes to judgment you will be okay."

I am not so optimistic. Most of us probably overestimate how good we are and many of us forget how bad we can be. But it is larger than that, than a simple list of good and bad. There is a sense of the whole body of work. What is my life's aim? What have I done with all I have received? I often wonder, if all the world was just like me, would it be a better or worse place? Inhonesty, I think all the world is like me, and that is why it looks like it does. I wonder, do I seek God's heart with all my strength? I answer, "no, not really, not all the time." It could lead to dispair, but it doesn't.

Today's reading reminds us of our hope. "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1) No offense to the world's leaders, but all they will accomplish is temporary solutions (which will create a new set of problems rather quickly). Our hope is in God's gracious act of re-creation. The things we know so well are all fundamentally broken, but some day the new and improved will arrive. There is a  different way of living in the world when you have that hope. It motivates prayer and it increases the desire to live like a citizen of the Kingdom. It also frees one from incessant worries about judgment. God is merciful and His intent is for salvation, not just for sinners, but for all creation. Those who love Him, even if imperfectly, will know that joy of life for evermore. A happy thought on a dreary, rainy Fall day.

Spiritual Not Religious

I was reading an article about the OWS movement. It explained how Liberal Protesters are untrusting of traditional Christians. They are wary of what they think will be conservatives. A group of progressive Christians shared that they wanted others to know about their faith. One Episcopal deacon stated that he believed that we need to support these protesters, regardless of faith, because of their spirit. He went on to say if he had a nickel for everyone who has told him that they are "spiritual, not religious" he could have retired. He seemed to think it was a good thing.

I preached on this subject once. Jesus confronted a demoniac in the synagogue. The man was under the control of an evil spirit. He was, spiritual but not religious. He did not keep, inwardly or outwardly, the dictates of the faith. His life was led by a spirit. That is the problem.

The spirit realm is not pure and holy. It is populated by good and evil. Some would argue that the evil in our material world is a direct result of interaction with the evil spirits. There is nothing new about people rejecting religious faith. Even in times when we were "very religious" there has always been a tendency for people to pay lip service to their beliefs. The divorce of spirituality and religion is narcisism. It is one more way that selfish Americans have it their own way. It is one more means of self deception. Being 'spiritual' frees people from the drudgery of living in community, loving people (especially obnoxious others) and being accountable to an authority which doesn't always agree with us. The hard work of being holy is replaced with love of nature and beauty (or whatever else the person opts to define "spiritual").

The movement of "spiritual not religious" is draining the churches of resources and manpower. Perhaps this is deserved. Perhaps God's judgment is manifest in this. Perhaps it is the result of the abuses of power and the failure to make disciples in earlier times. What it isn't is renewal. It is not better. It will not last. Because once unprepared people become spiritual, they are tasty treats for dark spirits. And unfortunately the price of that error is steep.

Jeremiah's Complaint

Yesterday's Bible study was a brief run-through of Jeremiah. We are studying 2 Kings and the chapters we are reading correspond to Jeremiah's career. We are attempting to go a bit deeper into the history of the text by looking at some orignal sources.

As part of our overview, we read Jeremiah 12. I provide the text below:
"You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?"

One of the arguments against our Christian faith is this very thing. People ask how God could allow such injustice to flourish. The great irony, to me, is that the very book which we call "God's Word" and which we identify as "God's Revelation" contains the same complaint.

While it is hard to fathom the injustice and unfairness. It appears that over 2500 years ago the same questions gnawed at a man who was deeply committed to God. A man called a prophet and revered as God's special servant. Many of us join Jeremiah in crying out to heaven, but I wonder how many share his humility? Jeremiah begins acknowledging that God will be in the right. In other words, there is a mystery at work. There is more than we can know or understand. We are facing something beyond our grasp. [Perhaps, in the end, the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? Believers do not understand it all, but they still acknowledge God is right.]

The story does not address Jeremiah's complaint. Or at least it does not seem to at first read. Rather than provide a theodicy (a defense of God's goodness in the face of evil) it instead portrays God as a hard-nosed drill sargeant who, to paraphrase, warns Jeremiah that "you ain't seen nothing yet!" "How," God asks, "will you run with horses if you are tired running with men? If you cannot walk on level ground how will you deal with thickets?" The Lord shows little mercy or kindness, as popularly understood in our current God-talk. Rather, exhorting and challenging, one gets the impression that the Almighty is demanding strength and courage from the frustrtaed prophet. The message continues, that Jeremiah will be betrayed by family and friend as well. Jeremiah ponders a sublime mystery while God responds with an updateof a new crisis from the real world!

It is a question which many of us ask and ponder. Why do the evil flourish. In the end, at least in Jeremiah 12, the answer seems to be: 'focus on being faithful'. That is hard to do, but the Lord seems not to care. If we cannot handle struggles now, how will we pass through the worse things headed our way? As pampered Christians living in luxury and ease, it is well for us to read, meditate upon and digest this dialgoue between God and Jeremiah. It just isn't easy!

Foolish Virgins: the End

Matthew 25:10 "...and the door was shut."

The image of the door closing in the face of a person desperate to enter is chilling. Being left outside, banging and begging, is horrible. It is also an image which Jesus employs more often than I like to think.

Most of us live in a world dominated by images of Grace and Forgiveness. The people who populate our churches do not believe in Hell. Most of them cannot imagine God ever saying, "Too late." This theological position has major impact on how we live our lives. Many of us are seduced into sin because we do not fear consequences. There is an assumption, "it isn't that big a deal." There is also a corollary, "God will forgive me."

Praying over the text of the ten virgins, one can almost hear the door slam and one can feel the terror of the women left out. The five wise virgins were taken, the other five were left behind. Many of us can well imagine that we are as similar to the fools as we are to the wise!

As originally spoken by Jesus, the parable makes sense as a challenge. The Bride Groom is here, will you be ready for Him? By the time Matthew wrote it in his Gospel, the initial call to the Jews and the initial warning to Jerusalem have passed. Now a church full of believers is reading and listening to the message. What subtle changes occur in hearing, again, this summons from the previous generation?

The door did close on those who rejected Jesus in 70AD. Jerusalem was conquered. Today, the same reality confronts us. What if there comes a time when the door is closed? Firmly and finally shut? What if "too late" is a real possibility? The summons is every bit as urgent today as it was then. The failure of the church to heed the call has been the downfall of many. The warning is given: "Watch, for you know neither the day nor the hour." The wise stand ready and prepared.

Ten Maidens

After a week of reflecting on marriage (and actually celebrating a marriage on Friday evening) I guess I was prepared well to  hear the Sunday Gospel. In it, Jesus tells a story about ten virgins/young women who hold lamps for the wedding party.

The commentaries tell us that in ancient times, the procession to the wedding event could take a long time. I heard Sunday from the preacher that some say the groom purposely arrived in a way intended to catch everyone by surprise. In other words, there was some game playing. The records from ancient weddings are probably not terribly thorough, although we do have some idea. Also, in some places today, some of those practices are still in place.

Five of the women, we are told, were moros (fools, also can mean godless). This term is where our word moron comes from. Jesus uses this word numerous times in Matthew's Gospel, never in the other three. The other uses highlight bad decision making.

What is the bad decision the young ladies made? They assumed things would move along more quickly than they did. They were not prepared for the long haul. Matthew has bunched together several parables with that theme. We do well to pay attention.

The go-go world I live in does not easily draw my focus to things eternal. Although I have a hungry, waiting heart, I sometimes am looking for other things. Pay day, a day off, a moments rest from pressing duties and concerns. I believe that we must nurture a desire for Jesus and we must hunger for His return. We must also be attentive to what proper waiting looks like. That is a task of the church!

On Love and Marriage 4

To this point we have seen how love of self can draw us to love others, and that in the marriage bond people create community. [Last night at the rehearsal dinner this was so apparent. The parents and the young couple spoke repeatedly about "your family is now my family."] This bonding happens, in part, because of self love, but it develops and blossoms over time into love of the other. As I also said, I think this is a reflection of the inner life of the Trinity. In other words, it is a footprint of God in our midst.

The final stage of marriage is probably the most controversial. When I did my pre-marriage counseling, the priest-therapist who did our work with us told me that I was wrong when I said this. In a sense, he is correct. Most couples will not embrace this fourth stage. It is not, to my limited knowledge, a component of the goods of marriage as outlined by various church teachers over the centuries. So it may be my idiosyncratic opinion, but I still think it is true.

If married love becomes community (both through gathering together outsiders into the love and/or through procreation and a new family), it is still, in a sense, a larger version of self love. Loving my kids is, in some sense, loving myself. Community with those whom we love is still a challenge. Few married people do not have regrets about their choice of spouse on occassion. Few parents would say that raising kids is always easy. So while this God given and God blessed state of affairs is godly, it is not necessarilly Christian. Pagans love their families. Atheists love their families. It is natural.

Christianity adds another dimension. It adds the dimensions of the Gospel: worship, mission, the cross. This is not all there is, but in a brief blog they are enough. In Christian marriage, the couple is a praying couple. In my experience, this is rare. Prayer is more intimate even than sex. Praying together makes us more vulnerable. Yet, a Christian marriage should be prayer centered. It is also joint worship. The eyes of a married couple need to move from the horizontal plane of community to the vertical plane of worship. The married couple, if Christian, must be active in church and particularly in worship. The couple should also be in mission together. Mission is larger than me, or us. Mission defines us in a way that is bigger than our own limited concerns. One leading cause of marriage breakdown is that the couple live separate lives guided by their own 'hearts.' In mission, we jointly follow the heart of Jesus. Now if a couple is prayerful and in mission together then they will be preaching and living the cross. The cross is self gift to God. The cross is self gift for others. The cross is painful. In dying to self (being crucified with Christ) we create the possibility of new life (being raised with Christ). In most marriages, each partner remains firmly self-focused much of the time. On the cross with Jesus, we are emptied of self (as individual and as couple) and spent for the sake of the Father in union with Christ.

When a married couple give themselves, together, for God's Kingdom, then something holy and wonderful happens. This is when a marriage is a Christian marriage, i.e., Christ centered. Like I said, I have encountered few marriages of this type in my years as a priest. But that doesn't negate the possibility. Tonight I will witness and bless another amazing young couple as they begin their married life together. They will sail off into an unknown future. It is my prayer that their marriage will be Christian and missional. It is my prayer that all marriages would be!

On Love and Marriage 3

To briefly summarize, self love provides a framework to love another, because the other makes one 'feel' good. Perhaps the word romantic love can be used at this point.

A boy sees a girl and thinks, "wow." He talks to her, awkwardly, but his level of interests sparks a complimentary spark in her. She finds his shyness appealing and he seems cute enough. Soon they find themselves drawn to spend more and more time together. Early on, perhaps immediately, one or the other determines that "I am in love!" Anyone who has experienced falling in love knows that it is a wonderful thing. It impacts our vision of the world. It changes our perceptions. It makes us happy.

As the individual 'me' collapses into the romantic 'we' the intensity can get pretty palpable. Some couples adopt a "I can't live without you" program where the lovers isolate and focus exclusively on one another. This melding may reach the point where one totally hands over control to the other. Obsession, sometimes violence, can accompany such singular focus. There are various malicious results which are possible. One reads of stalking, of jealousy, even of murder. In a less ugly form, the couple just become obnoxious in their mutual focus. Constantly gazing into each other's eyes, they become a dyadic version of self love.

But rarely do we see couples who fail to integrate others into their love. This is often times not even a choice. It happens naturally. The couple has a past, littered with family and friends and events and experiences. From time to time we run into those folks. My friends befriend my beloved. Yes, there is a tendency toward community when two become one. Of course, fecundity is also a natural aspect of married love. Love manifested physically can, and does, make babies. (so does lust, but the resulting family system is rarely optimal in those cases) In ideal cases, the couple, who love one another, suddenly find themselves loving this tiny little interloper. Bidden or not, the baby explodes the dyad. The couple turn from facing one another and side by side stare at the newborn. (although love of child can also be merely self love in an expanded form)

There is something of the Trinity reflected in all this. For all eternity the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. It always was and always will be. This love eternally creates the Spirit, the personal bond of Father and Son, the cause and effect. The mystery of Trinity is too sublime to understand. I do not try. But I do see the reality stamped in the world in which we live, most especially in relationships. As the internal Love of God explodes in creative love, a whole universe is "born" and there are children produced, folks like you and me.

As the couple's love grows and envelopes others, friends and family, we see a movement outward. If a couple's love produce children, we see a movement outward. It is possible for the family to become another version of self-love. It is possible for it to be limited in its expansiveness. Yet, there is also another possibility. The same couple whose love draws together diverse people (this is seen most strongly at the wedding, where people populating different corners of the couple's lives are brought together in one room) can choose to act in ways which benefits others. Maybe he introduces his friend to her friend (and romance blooms). Maybe an uncle on her side meets a neighbor on his and they strike up a conversation which leads to some later exchange. Happens all the time.

But in Christian marriage, to my mind, there is another, an intentional component: Shared ministry. More on that tomorrow.

On Love and Marriage 2

Today we look at the person's love of self.
I think we come into the world with "self-lust" and the first battle is getting that under control. By self-lust I mean the desires and hungers which dictate most of our decisions. Levi is five months old now. He is becoming social and interactive. It is very easy to deal with him, as long as he is satisfied. How a baby feels dictates how a  baby acts. Increasing pleasure and avoiding pain are the motivation.

As we grow up, certain people enter our lives. They are valued to the degree that they bring us pleasure or reduce pain. The process of bonding is reflective of caregiving. Already I have seen that there is greater delight and a brighter smile for momma than there is for daddy. I know why, she is a much better caregiver!

We continue to be drawn to relationships based on how people make us 'feel.' Sometimes it is a physical attraction, sometimes emotional or mental. We are drawn to them (and them to us) for some self serving reasons. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not, but it is the way it is and there is not much choice to it. I do not know what an unfallen world would look like so I do not know what an alternate to this is. I do know that romantic love is a special and intense type of this self love. We "fall in love" and much of it has to do with "me" and how "you make me feel."

One positive of self love is that it draws us toward others. This is the first step in a true relationship. We value another because of what that other does for us. So we are motivated to do things for that other because it benefits us, but alongside that there comes a growing realization that we are loving that other for who they are. This transition is vital in all relationships, and certainly is needed for a marriage.

The problems, obviously, are multiple. One issue is that we never lose self-lust (fulfillment of hungers) even if we mature into self-love (truly caring for our self). Love means doing the best for ourself (which includes discipline, sacrifice and pain). Self-lust indulges, it plays late and sleeps in. Self love studies, eats healthy and works out. The struggles with 'the flesh' continue unabated throughout our life. A marriage based on self centeredness will last as long as the other person makes us feel good. I heard on the news that a celebrity beauty is ending her marriage after 72 days. Apparently the entire courtship and wedding were a television show. Hmmm, not sure I should judge but I am thinking this sounds like self-love&lust...

I think one reason that so many marriages fail is because so few couples move much beyond self-love (and self-lust). Even when a marriage appears healthy, it is often just a well managed partnership of two people taking from one another. The breaking point comes, sometimes after fifteen, twenty or more years of marriage when one partner decides that the time is short to find 'true happiness' so they withdraw (or divorce) and pursue someone else who will "make me feel good."

The value of self love is it does draw us to others, even if at first it is for our own benefit. However, as one relates to the other, we see new venues open up. Tomorrow we will look at couple-love and the Trinity.

On Love and Marriage 1

A couple of weeks ago I was honored to officiate at the wedding of a young couple. The woman, someone I have known since she was in seventh grade, is a beautiful, bright, holy person who is currently working to serve the needs of the world's poorest peoples. Her new spouse, whom I know only in passing, is a bright young engineer doing esoteric studies at a big university. They met at church camp and are people of faith.They are lovely people who come from lovely families.

In preparing the sermon I was aware that most people there were not Episcopalians. We were at a family home in rustic Arkansas, a gorgeous setting, and many of the attendees were people I have never met.I opted to reflect on Love and Marriage, with special attention the the Trinity and Incarnation. This weekend I have another marriage and so marriage is on my mind. I thought my brief reflections would be interesting blogging material. I guess you can let me know!

The summary is this. Self love is the first and foundational love. Love of self moves, eventually, to a love of another. This love of another can be selfish but it can also broaden to include others. As the love expands beyond our personal 'connections' into the world, it becomes mission and service. This three step process (self-another-others) is not automatic nor is it easy. It can be reversed. However, it is a major component of my own theology of marriage. I hope tomorrow to look more intently at self love.