Ash Wednesday

So much to write about from the last week, but today is Ash Wednesday and it seems fitting to focus on that instead.

Ash Wednesday may seem to be a paradox. Our Gospel today, from Matthew, says that one should not do acts of piety for public consumption. Then we all stroll around the rest of the day with ashes on our forehead. Of course, Jesus makes clear that it is public displays for the purpose of invoking the praise from others. In our culture, ashes are more likely to invoke criticism or mockery. They are probably more witness (Jesus promoting) than self promoting our piety.

The message I shared today focused on the concept of Lent, which means spring. Springtime came early around these parts (we have had little by way of winter weather). Already trees are in bloom and flowers are shooting out of the ground. Spring is a time of new life. One of the most endearing parts of the movie Bambi (probably my favorite Disney movie) is the colors of blooming flowers and the baby animals frolicking. It just feels great to be alive in spring (aside from alergies) and I think Lent should include that dimension.

As we begin anew we are confronted with two realities. Sin and Death. Jesus Christ is God's answer to the problem of sin and death. So Lent is a time to actively seek out forgiveness and healing. Stepping aside from the various theories about how exactly that happens, Lent is a time to receive the mercy and to repent in reponse to the mercy so that it can become a powerful force in our lives. "Forgive me! Heal me!" are words we need to repeat over and again during Lent. Perhaps in facing our own sin and brokenness we will be more kindly with the sin and brokenness of others. Mercy is something we receive and then pass on!

The sacrifices of Lent are intended to draw us nearer to God and not be an ends in themselves. Hence, the point of fasting is to remind ourselves that 'man does not live by bread alone...' and to act like it is true. Being hungry and uncomfortable is a way to discipline our appetites. It is also an active prayer saying "I love you" to the Father.

My suggestion is that Lenten disciplines be tailored to mission and ministry. We should "give up" in order to translate that time into something more valuable. We "give up" in order that money spent in pursuing our own desires (which is not bad) can now be invested in the work of the church (seeing to the needs of others be they physical, mental, emotional or spiritual). Here is how it looks concretely: I skip lunch one day, contribute the $10.00 to a mission. During the half hour I am not eating I read the Gospel of Mark. In that time I can probably read four chapters or so. I can also spend some moments in quiet, thanking God for blessings (like food to eat every day, a job, the ability to read, etc.) Ask God to use you to share Him with others. Eventually, God will set it up where someone asks you about lunch. You tell them you have a little thing going on from church. If they pursue it you say I will tell you about it. In the course of telling them, you share the Gospel and your personal faith. Who know what impact it could have. One thing it will definitely do, it will make you try harder to be good because you can't be fasting and praying and act like a jerk, right?

Lent is springtime. A time for a new mind (in Christ) and a converted way of being. A time for discipline and hard work. A time for sacrifice and self-gift. A time to transform some of your time, talent and treaure into Kingdom resources for the love of Jesus. May our Father bless you with His Holy Spirit and a most holy lent!

ConFORMation

Paul to the Romans (and us!): "do not be conformed  to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God."

The world, unfortunately, is not always straightforward. It has a way of injecting it self in ways that are subtle and nuanced. That has long been the Church's problem. She is filled with the Holy Spirit and is a new creation in Christ, but she is also created from humans who have plenty of the old creation (i.e., the world) in them. One of the recurring themes of my writing is the painful reality of just how much world still remains in the new creation. Christian Triumphalism does not ring true in my ears. Perhaps I have seen too much of the inner workings of the Church. Maybe I have observed too many Christians in their daily lives. (Maybe I am just negative) Anyhow, Paul obviously thought being conformed to the world was not only a possibility, but enough of a temptation that he needed to exhort the church to avoid it.

How do we conform to the world? Perhaps the best source of that information is to visit with non-believers. Let them speak about their goals and desires. Invite them to paint a vision of how the world should be. These folks are your primary resource for understanding ''the world." Maybe we need to take a few weeks off from evangelizing and spend that time doing research.

I think we might be surprised by how much our evangelism resembles marketing. How much our value system reflects socio-economic status. Many times Christian worship looks like popular entertainment (or traditional worship looks like high brow entertainment, or country and western entertainment). Many times Christian fellowship looks like a meeting of a Republican PAC, unless, of course, it resembles a Democratic PAC.
Many times.... and there are a myriad of other examples.

How does one choose a church? What is the criteria? How different is it from choosing where to live or work? Is it motivated by what I want or what am I called to do? I fear that my life is much more conformed to the world than I am aware. I am not sure that my unbelieving neighbors in this community would find my family life terribly different from their own. The struggle is finding a way to not conform to the world which conforms to Jesus. Too often we just opt to conform to another segment of the world and we do it in a worldly way. In a couple of weeks it will be Lent. A season for repentance. Also a season for self examination. Maybe a good idea to do investigate how much con-forming I have done.

Demons

Friday and Saturday we had our Vestry retreat. I sort of led the time together. My goal was to identify concrete and actionable goals. I think we were able to accomplish that. Like New Year's resolutions, our church goals seem to be the same every year. One recurring one, at least since 2007 has been to increase church attendance. An associated desire is to "get more young families." So at announcements I told the parish that we had a plan to improve attendance, "We have hired to highly trained assassins who will hunt down and torture anyone who misses mass!" Everyone chuckled and then I added, "I am just kidding... they aren't highly trained." I then transitioned into the real plan, which is to find ways to invite people into more serious commitment to the Lord and His church.

The reality is, if our members took church attendance seriously we would be seeing lots more of our young families and our pews would be filled each week at all the services. If our relationship with God is a matter of (eternal) life and death and if Sunday worship is a constitutive part of that and if skipping out each week is (a partial) rejection of our Christian identity, then we shouldn't need assassins to motivate folks. God would be enough.

Sunday's Gospel (I did not preach) was a story about Jesus in a synagogue. Mark uses it as a way to kick off Jesus' ministry. We are told that Jesus taught as one who had authority. At some point a man stood up and shouted, "What have you to do with us Jesus of Nazareth?" What indeed... There are many things which strike me about this section, but two jump out.

1. What is a demon? Reading commentaries one gets the distinct impression that most contemporary scholars are uncomfortable with the concept. Some think that the belief in demons is pre-scientific. So the demonic is actually considered to be a term covering a host of other things, mental illness being a major one, but also including the powers at work (think of peer pressure or societal impact) among us. The demonic in this sense refers to any 'forces' which do damage to humans. The problem is, at least for me, it is not easy to translate social/economic/emotional forces into the personalized nature of demonic possession as expressed in the New Testament.

I do think that there are spiritual entities who inhabit a realm not easily discerned. Terms like angels and demons are helpful because they give substance to what is not materially substantial. How exactly these entities work, how they can impact the material world, why they are given freedom to do this---is not totally clear. It falls under the heading of "Mystery" and awaits a future explanation.

How does mental illness (in mild forms like we all experience it from time to time or in the more destructive cases which literally destroy some folks) and the demonic co-exist. Are demons causal agents? How does modern science factor in? Do we call in an exorcist for depression or dementia? Do we claim medicine alone cures and ignore other realms? Certainly, we know this is all much more complex than a blog can address. In the end, I prefer to recognize that humans are in many systems. We engage our world at many levels: atomic, chemical, organic, psychological, social, emotional, congnitive and, yes, spiritual. Our cultural beliefs, our sex and age, our moods and our physical health (and etc.) are all factors in how we deal with germs and problems. Our spiritual health and the presence of demons is also a factor. Are demons part of physical and emotional illness? Why not?

2. The second point of reflection is less speculative and mysteerious. The demoniac, whatever he was, was in the gathered assembly. The word synagogue and church were interchangeable at this point. It wasn't until later that they took on specifically Jewish vs. Christian connotations. For me, it is stunning to think that a possessed man was participating in the Jewish service. It seems to mean that, perhaps, our own churches (even pulpits!) can be filled with people who are 'owned' by the "other side." Contemporary reworks of the understanding of the demonic certainly would have room for that idea. It is a stern reminder that this side of glory we are in the midst of challenges. No one is totally safe and free. Perhaps it is fair to say that one reason for lagging church attendance is that people have been seduced by the demonic. Maybe the (good) things which take up so much of our time and energy are being processed through (evil) forces which twist and pervert them (and us). Maybe we are not totally safe yet. A good reason to show up for church and pray for deliverance. A great reason to turn to Jesus!

Jonah and God Changed His Mind (2)

Are Christmas and Good Friday special cases of how God normally works in the universe or exceptions to the rule?

Often times we act like the Incarnation is a one and one time only event. We deal with it in a way that it is so unique as to almost be considered 'out of character' for God. Much of that has to do with our efforts to defend Christianity's (and Jesus Christ's) unique status. One wants to make clear that Jesus is the One and Only. But what if we are missing out on the wider truth, that the Incarnation is, in fact, the most perfect and beautiful example of God's ongoing and regular mode of dealing with His creation?

Ancient Israel is replete with stories of God's visitation. Sometimes personally (cf. Abraham or Moses) and sometimes for the community (cf Exodus, Joshua). God is manifest in our midst in a variety of ways, fire being one, but also in human form (the angelic visitors to Abraham). The texts do not clearly differentiate between angels and God when they do. We also know that "the Word of God" seems to have a substantial existence. We are told it does things, like come, and it impacts the Prophets. The presence of God's Word within the prophet (or at other times the Spirit) is certainly on the border line of incarnation. After all, it is God speaking in our language. It is God limiting Himself to the constraints of spoken words.

Mystics encounter God in and through the world around us. God interacts with the human mind and human heart. God breathes His life into us. God is associated with the cult, the King, the prophet, the people, etc. He forms partnerships with individuals and also with the entire People of Israel (you will be my people and I will be your God). The depth and intensity of this particular relationship is most resoundingly expressed in the marriage covenant and Father-daughter language we hear time and again in the Scripture.

There is something about creation which is open to God's presence in our midst. In fact, one might say that the ontology is sacramental, that the actual existing world is intended to serve as a vehicle, in which and through which, the invisible God is manifest. That He can be seen, touched and encountered in the stuff of every day life. In particular, this is true of humans who are the most complete image and likeness of God.

With that in mind, the incarnation of Jesus, God become Man, is in fact consistent with how God has acted throughout time and in space.

It is that willingness of God to empty Himself which makes the Cross possible. In renouncing His power to control, and in investing Himself in relationship to His creation, God, in some real sense, has madeit possible to be rejected, and even, hurt. The book of Genesis says that we broke God's heart. Surely one must be careful to not overstate the case of divine passion. Surely. Yet, is it not equally dangerous to ignore such a thing entirely. To pretend like God is above it all, when perhaps, He has chosen to enter in our midst. Maybe the Cross of Jesus is, rather than an outlier, the symbol of all God has done since He made us. Perhaps, in embracing us, He has also embraced limitation and loss. If such is the case, and it seems to be [once again, as God encounters us in the dimension of time and space] then perhaps it may also be the case that God has not only relinquished (some) control, but that He also has partnered with us and has placed a great deal more into our hands than we are prepared to think.

Of course, when one is talking about the infinite God, it is important to remember , there is always much more to the story. Even so, this angle seems to me, to be Scriptural and worthy of thought.

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.

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!

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.

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!

False Prophets

Something I used to hear as a young priest was the following: "Things are really pretty simple, we are the ones who make it complex and mess it up." This was generally in reference to  faith life. Then they would share with me the simple thing, "just trust" or "love one another." And, of course, "just read the Bible and do what it says."

It may be pious sounding to say "it is all pretty simple" but I do not think it is true. I think it is complex and the complexity has increased dramatically in the last few decades as technology makes the world more connected and we are confronted with a vast array of viewpoints (including many within the Body of Christ). Reading the Bible can sometimes add to the confusion.

Yesterday I shared some thoughts on Jesus' command to not judge. The command is pretty simple and there is a very concrete practice which can come from it. Hold myself to a higher standard. Criticize my own position with the same intensity I do others. Work extra hard to understand others, and have a merciful heart in doing it. But reading more makes things more complex!

Today, I want to look at what Jesus said a few verses later. "Beware of false prophets." So much for not judging, right? Obviously, false prophets don't wear a tee shirt with the words "FALSE!" on the front. How, exactly, does one know a false prophet unless one makes a judgment of some sort? Obviously, not to judge needs to be understood in a complex way.

Apparently, in Matthew's time, there were people who claimed to be Spirit-led. They advocated all manner of "freedom" (or license). We see this tension in the early church in other writings as well. Paul makes mention of those who misunderstand the true meaning of freedom and have twisted his words. In Revelation, there is mention of the Nicolatians and the followers of Balaam. In fact, as much as grace, there is a prevalence of moral demands and ethical exhortations. The NT follows the OT in saying God places behavioral expectations upon us.

Jesus says we must produce fruits (righteousness) and that we should beware of those who preach a message which negates morality (or redefines it). Matthew's church must have had people who were doing that. It should come as no surprise that in our own day such things continue to happen. Fortunately, we do have a criteria: fruits.

False prophets, claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, seem much in vogue in TEC and other churches. [The "conservative" version of false prophets also exist. They generally do not populate the halls of power in my denomination. We have the left wing in super abundance.] Discipleship focuses on Jesus and what He calls us to. It defines love by His defintion, not some contemporary one. It walks on "the narrow way." Jesus is clear, the path is narrow and the way is hard and there are darn few who make it. The 'tolerance' crowd, proclaiming a wide path with diverse ways, is, based on the words of Jesus, acting like false prophets. The spirit within us which hungers for an easier way is not the Holy Spirit. The spirit guiding our bishops and our general convention has not been the Spirit of God. The fruits are not there. The righteousness of Jesus is not there. The errors being expounded as something new are not new at all. It is the same old false teaching.

Yet, in every age, God gathers those who are His faithful ones. The key is being faithful. The challenge is to not be so focused on the errors of others that we lose sight of our own errors. One can stray too far left and fall off the narrow path, but it is equally true on the right. The Sermon on the Mount is neither simple nor easy. The way of discipleship can be confusing. But Jesus promises to be with those who seek Him and submit to His word. We have hope, even if we mess up. It is a complex world and discipleship can be complex. Reading large sections of Scripture and balancing one section with another, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in communion with the Saints (attending to their interpretations) is not easy. It is a narrow way. It is, however, the way of life in Jesus!

GLBT's sticky argument (2)

(Following up on yesterday, so read it first). On September 14th our local paper ran an article by David Brooks, "The erosion of shared moral frameworks." Brooks reflected on the findings from a group of sociologists who studied America's youth. His point is that today's youth, while not decadent, are inept in discussing moral issues. Two-thirds were unable to describe a moral dilemma. Brooks reflects upon their inablility to think in moral terms. It is very disconcerting. He concludes that things were different in the past: "A shared religion defined rules and practices. Cultures structured people's imaginations and imposed moral disciplines. But now more people are led to assume that the free-floating individual is the essential moral unit."

This does not mean that people were better in the past. Sinful humans sin. The problem of sin is always there. The problem is the younger among us are incapable of deciphering what sin is, beyond obvious things like murder. The bigger problem is the total ascendency of the individual/personal over the corporate/communal.The ethical system in which I was educated in seminary had a helpful balance between individual conscience and institutional expectations. The concept of an informed conscience was a key element. A person was expected to engage the revelation of God's will as found in Scripture and discerned by and articulated through the Church. I know the Protestant approach negates the latter as unhelpful, and many Protestant friends speak of Church Tradition as a negative. Yet, clearly, the current conflict over interpretation of Scripture is grounded in "free-floating individuals" and the result has been rather chaotic.

The adovcates for Man-Boy love (called NAMBLA, a group which no longer "officially" exists) was originally an active agent in gay rights advocacy. Lesbians were resistant to this and as the gay rights advocates became 'less radical' and more mainstream NAMBLA was expelled from their organizations. One can only wonder to what degree the decisions were made for practical purposes (in pursuing acceptance of homosexuality). I have no doubt that many homosexuals whom I know would be offended by NAMBLA. I also am not surprised that Lesbians would find it offensive. The only point I make is that there is an overlap, and a significant overlap, of the movement to 'normalize' GLBT relationships and the aims of NAMBLA.

Because the existing moral code is under attack, not only by secularists, but also by those within the church, we live in a time where much change is taking place. What is most worrisome is that the conservative evangelicals, long criticized for their "intolerance" are manifesting the same erosion of values that their Liberal/Progressive opponents are advocating. It is based, at least in part, on the general decline of churches into collections of "free-floating individuals." The ecclessiology of many committed Christians minimizes the value of church and negates catholicity. An emphasis on personal salvation is interpretted through the predominant cultural lense (what is in it for me?) and the rejection of the church's authority to teach reduces each person to an isolated decision maker. Shaped by assumptions which are non-Christian and limited by mediocre skills in moral analysis and decision making, the church youth are little better equipped to answer life's challenges than their non-believing neighbors. In the end, the Bible is not always terribly helpful to such an individual. There is much in the Bible which confuses. There is a need to intrepret the texts and such interpretations can be very divergent, very, very divergent. And when we listen to no voive but our own (and those who say what we want to hear) the likelihood of hearing the text say what we want to  hear increases tenfold.

The success of the GLBT coalition has been astounding. For the better part of a decade it has been front and center of news stories and popular entertainment. (e.g., a popular show among teens, Glee, revels constantly in gay themes). Progressives would applaud such openness. I am not so enthusiastic. Instead, I continue to see (helpful) boundaries disappear. The efforts to normalize the GLBT has moved the limits of toleration ever closer to acceptance of the 'next thing'. The current movement to change age of consent and rethink the issue of sex between adult and child is the beginning, not the end, of a process. To the extent that they have undermined traditional moral teaching, the adovocates of GLBT stand responsible for this latest tragedy. The failure of honesty and the refusal to analyze their own arguments (and the consequences of their claims) has produced an environment of new danger. Calling traditional morality "hate speech" has made it less possible to speak the truth in love to the advocates of child sex. Molesters revel in all this. They have hope that the weakened standing of the traditional moral code will provide them with the opportunity to normalize their perversions. I do not see how the Progressives can answer this advance. After all, when you claim that no one  has a right to judge another, you open the door to everything. Well, the door is open and everything is on its way in.

GLBT's sticky argument

Those familiar with the tiny hands of toddlers know that frequent washing is mandatory. Toddlers tend to involve all their digits when eating, and they enjoy foods which are loaded with ingredients which produce 'hand magnets.' You know, the jelly coated paws which are then covered with fuzz and assorted other debris. Yes, sticky fingers can unintentionally pick up all manner of excess. Arguments work the same way.

I am a counselor and was drawn to this vocation because of a natural inclination to feel empathy. The pain of others induces a response in me. I have counseled several young men and women who struggled with their sexual identity and inclinations. In almost every case, the person I dealt with was a sympathetic figure. Their pain was real and heartbreaking. Among other things, we discussed the morality of the situation and I explained the 'internal forum' to those whose understanding of their situation was different than mine. I was involved in one gay bashing incident, where I was asked to intervene with someone who was bullying some homosexuals, which I did. I am against picking on people.

When the episcopal church made it's decision(s) around all things GLBT, the process was political. We met in conventions and passed legislation. As such, the decisions were made in the realm of power and politics. Arguments were obviously provided, sometimes with great passion, but I am not sure how much actual discussion took place. Dialogue frequently means, "let's talk and then do what I want." That was certainly what I saw in this process.

As an inside observer of the process I attempted to listen to the arguments. In the end, the pro-GLBT arguments drove me to the other side. They were generally problematic. They tended to ignore the implications of their conclusions. It did not feel 'nice' to take such a position. It was difficult in light of the pain so many GLBT had suffered. But having spent many years in seminary where moral argumentation was taught I knew that reason has a place in argumentation and reason was not on their side.

Among the things which worried me most was the disdain for tradition and philosophy (especially teleology). The Biblical arguments were typical. Each side grabbed up some texts and either "proofed" their position or "explained away" the other. The best argument I heard (though ironically unappealing at first hearing) was that the natural order is man-woman marriage as set forth in Genesis. I found this to be unmoving for a long time. The genius of the insight dawned on me later. However, perhaps because of the more Protestant nature of the group, rarely was the church's historical interpretation of the texts brought forth. In the end, the fatal flaw of personal interpretation is it is personal. As such, conservatives tend to read conseratively and liberals tend to read liberal-ly. It is the nature of our subjectivity. Therefore, the pros and cons argued past each other. Much of the Biblical interpretation was shaped by feelings and limited insights into the position held.

However, as the 'progressives' rejected large blocks of scripture as 'outdated' they failed to recognize the repurcussions. Like a toddler with sticky fingers, their arguments were picking up exrtra debris. For example, the claim that one's sexual orientation is God given and therefore God blessed. We heard the constant refrain "God made me this way." I and others pointed out that this was an erroneous assumption and a problematic one as well. We were ignored (and demonized). Fastforward eight years, to September 2011. Now we hear a growing movement to normalize pedophilia... The argument used? You guessed it. We cannot judge the natural occuring desires of another. Let me be clear, I and others made this logical connection almost a decade ago and we were lambasted. Now, before our eyes, we see and hear exactly the things we said would happen. The horror.

The pro-pedophilia crowd has embraced the GLBT arguments and inserted their own group. The outcome is less certain, but in the end, once one begins arguing about the acceptability of such things, there is a sense in which the battle is lost. A society which argues about such things is open to the possibility. A society which embraces unfettered freedom and individual rights is ripe to embrace it.

I am not saying gay people are child molesters. I am, however, also not shying away from the fact that the arguments made for acceptance of LGBT is also being used by the pro-pedophilia. That is what I saw coming long ago. Arguments have consequences. Changing institutions impacts other institutions. Dismantling marriage will produce other unintended consequences.

The connections between some in the GLBT community and those sexually attracted to youths are documented. Sex between adult males and male teens has been well documented in the clergy sex abuse scandals. Ignoring this inconvenient truth has not been helpful. The politically correct limitations have helped create an environment where the idea of child molesting may become past tense. It is all so awful.

Years ago when I said such things I was told it would never, could never happen. Today, we are in the midst of the discussions. Many people have no idea what is going on. They did not pay attention to the consequences of 'sticky' arguments. Trying to be nice they opened the door to 'everyone' without thinking what everyone includes. An unattended, open door provides an open avenue to the monsters. And the monsters are real. And the monsters are trying to come in the house.

End of World

Sunday we had our first High School Sunday School class of the new year. We are studying the Book of Revelation. For many people the "Left Behind" series is the only approach to this book.

One interesting fact is that the Book of Revelation was not universally accepted as Scripture in the early church. In fact, many in the church rejected its authroity. Obviously, it is in the Bible, but that process was not smooth. I also know that in the church's lectionary, there are few appearances from this book. SO although it is in the Bible, it is only rarely read in the church's worship. What is also interesting to me is that there is no definitive way to read the Book of Revelation. In fact, over the history of the church, there have been four approaches which were utilized in reading this book. In simplest form, two of the approaches see it as predicting the 'end of the world.' One says that process will begin in the future, while the other thinks the process has already begun and is moving to completion at some point in the future. A third approach thinks the book was actually predicting the Fall of Jerusalem in 70AD and spoke in cosmic terms about that past event (it was the "end of the world as we know it"). The fourth approach sees the Book as symbolic of the struggle between God's rule and the principalities and powers in every age. Hence, it is a 'spiritual' reading applicable to any time.

I lean toward the latter two modes, in large part because I have seen how much of the imagery used in Revelation can be found throughout the Old Testament, especially in the prophets. The expression, "coming on the clouds" (which is frequently associated with the rapture) can be found in the OT to describe God's judgment. Obviously, interpretation is impacted by how one approaches the text.

The bigger question is, does God have a certain date set for the end of the world, or is it something that will be determined in response to human activity? I believe God has a plan, but that doesn't really answer the question. His plan may be to end the world on March 21, 2039. Or His plan may be to end the world when the diabolical powers establish their counter kingdom. Perhaps the battle has waged on and on for centuries. Maybe Hitler or Stalin were close to it. Maybe if WWII or the Cold War had ended differently then God would have acted in the final, definitive way.

In some ways, the answer to that question impacts my life today. Does God already know when, or am I (and you) playing a part in the process? In other words, does prayer, politics, personal and public morality have an impact on God's world. Does what we pray and do matter?

There are many approaches to this question as well. But as I look at the Middle East, the economic meltdown, the threats of war it gets me to wondering. And as I look at the advances and improvements in daily life, the remarkable blessings which we take for granted, I feel some wonder. What is God up to? What part do you and I play? How we live our lifes is the actual answer we give to that question.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (6)

In the Genesis 2 account, after God has formed the man out of dust, we read that He breathes into the man and the man becomes a nephesh. This word has multiple meanings (soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion) and I want to focus on one in particular: appetite.

In a series of stimulating lectures by an OT professor over a decade ago, we were taught that the Hebrew root of the word meant open. The illustration he used was the open mouth of a baby bird. That image stunned me because it reversed my view of the pre-Fall creation. The idea that we came into the world "hungry" from the beginning is a different kind of idea. It is certainly different from the idea that we were complete and whole and static. Instead, even before the Fall, it seems that we had needs and desires, an appetite.

A few verses later we read that it was not good for the man to be alone. This, too, because it is so familiar, can be overlooked. If there were perfect bliss in the pre-Fall state, then why is it not good? The reality is, the 'adam  had desires and needs. At least one, companionship, was not fufilled. We know he got hungry, there was a garden full of food. It does not say much about sleep, he slept when the material for the woman was scooped from his side/rib. Perhaps he did get tired and slept at other times as well?

All this to say, some of what we see as the burdens of life may in fact be part of the original plan. Hunger, desire, need.... Maybe even before the Fall there was struggle. Maybe struggle makes us grow and develop. Perhaps the difference is, post-Fall, our intimacy with God has been damaged and the fruit of our labors has been cursed by our sin. Maybe that is why it is so hard to believe. Maybe faith is the greatest loss from the Fall. Or maybe it is love. We see how quickly the man and woman damage each other, the brother murders brother. Perhaps the Fall  has diminished out capacity to trust, hope and love.

I think these stories can and should penetrate us. We need to ponder them, less as a means to attack and destroy others, but rather as a mode of encounter. Did God speak these words to us? I think so. I think herein we find an insight into the Truth of life. But it is a God who is not at our own beck and call and not as a God who is less than us. It is insight into a SOMEONE who far exceeds our capacity to know Him or understand Him. I have reflected this week on Genesis in the hopes that people would enter into the depth of the text. I also hope that the authority and truth of the Word can be respected even as we try to understand the nature of the communication and the reality that it is divinely inspired literature.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (5)

http://www.getreligion.org/2011/08/fringe-catholics-in-the-news-again/

The story (above) about "Fringe Catholics who believe in geocentric universe" was timely in light of this week's reflections. In the article, from a blog on how religion is covered in media (and covered poorly!), the author is pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church has a right to identify its membership. What was interesting to me, was this group, be it Roman or not, is advocating that the earth is the center of the universe. This view point is, of course, the Bible's version, and in days gone by that debate was the decisive one between "church" and "science." It is noteworthy, that currently we hear little about Evangelicals being fired from schools for teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. Why is that?

The teaching of evolution is a much more recent phenomenon. Most Christians do not know history. Many pride themselves on that fact. Ignorance of history, however, is widespread, so I am not picking on my co-religionists here. It just means that the arguments today are not contextualized in the wider view of things which history affords. Also, the science of evolution has produced a philosophy of evolution. The two interpenetrate, but they are not the same thing. Evolution as philosophy expands far beyond the reach of science.While I am sure the processes of life do look like evolution, it is clear to me that evolution as a theory does not explain everything. There are holes in the theory. That is the nature of human explanations. I have read numerous books & blogs by any number of highly educated scientists which has illustrated the places where evolutionary theory falls short. I am also a (catholic) Christian. We have a creed which declares "I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth." When dismissive people mock my hesitance to embrace evolution I remind them that my faith makes clear that we are NOT the result of accidental processes. There is a SOMEONE behind this whole process.

Do I think the Bible explains it all? NOPE! And I would argue that it does not try. Adam and Eve have two sons. One kills the other. The murderer, Cain, is exiled. But he makes a plea, "My punishment is too great... You have banished me from the soil and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wander on earth, anyone who meets me may kill me." So God puts a mark upon him and promises him protection. Then Cain leaves the presence of the Lord and settles east of Eden in the land of Nod.

So the obvious question, "who are these other people?" I know the popular answer is Adam and Eve had other kids. But does the text sound like that is the issue? Why would Cain not say, "I  must flee from my brothers and sisters, for they will know of my deed and avenge my brother"? IF the point of the story is to explain that every living person was from Adam and Eve, would it not make sense to spell it out? I know, earlier Eve is call the mother of all the living. I get that. What I do not get is why the story sidesteps that issue. Why is it "Cain knew his wife" but there is no explanation of who his wife is and where she came from? Why does it not say, so Cain took his sister and she became his wife?

Perhaps, the story is about sin. It is about how human nature, soiled by evil, grew worse. Maybe it illustrates that those who disobey God soon kill their brother? That right relationship with God is needed to have right relationship with humans? Maybe it is an allegory about the danger of farming (Cain) versus shepherding (Abel)? Whatever the case, as one reads these chapters it is obvious that the main point is not to explain how Adam and Eve populated the earth. I daresay it is not even a secondary or tertiary point. It is just assumed that people are there. Cain founds a city, the first city, named after his son Enoch. Where did all the folks come from? No mention is made. Perhaps we are to take a signal from that. Within a few generations we hear about copper and iron (Tubal-cain). Once again, history indicates that the iron age is not so close to the dawn of humanity. What to do with that?

If we want to  hear the word of God, then we must listen to God. It is not more faithful to claim that a mystical text is not mystical. It is not more faithful to read a mythical explanation text (so common across all cultures) and read it as something different than what it is.  It is not more faithful to make a text into a modern geology, history or science text when it is an ancient explanatory text. There is a message here in Genesis it just isn't biological. A couple of centuries ago Christians accepted that it was not a message about a flat earth, covered with a dome, sitting on columns, with all the stars, moon and sun rotating around it. We accepted it and moved on. Now we are in the painful period of dealing with another "assault" on what we "thought was the case." Christians do well to balance their defense of the faith against evolutionary philosophy with a willingness to let science be science and the texts of the Bible be what they are. I do not know if the reflections this week have been helpful for people struggling with these issues. I do know that God reigns and all will be well, someday, for those who trust Him. 

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (4)

I knew the story of Adam and Eve quite well long before I read it in the Bible. It first appeared in children's books. It was a staple of my early Catholic education. It received catechism treatment, that is, it was filtered through teaching truths about God and humankind. This is not a bad thing, but it means that the actual text is not encountered. There is, however, one problem: was it perfectly blissful in the Garden?

Trying to read the text without all the preconceived ideas about 'how it was' is difficult. After all, I already knew it before I read it. But already in Genesis 1 we run across some words which make it possible that all was not bliss in the days before sin. Here is God's word to the (hu)man (the Hebrew word is 'adam) ("male and female He created them")

"Be fruitful and multiply" This is the first command from God. It is repeated to Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
"fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion"

• subdue (kabash) comes from the root to trample under feet, to make subject (the next four times the word appears it refers to the military conquests of Israel). Jeremiah uses the word a couple of times to refer to making men and women slaves. Lastly, in Esther, it refers to a man forcing himself on a woman. [I recall an expression of threat as a child "I'll put the kabash on you" which is no doubt related to this usage.]  
• dominion (radah) is equally strong: to rule, to subjugate, to tread down, to dominate. In several instances the leaders of Israel are warned to respect God and not dominate their fellow Israelites.

I think that from the beginning, we are being told, there was effort expected. It seems that the earth was not so compliant and the work of humanity more challenging than the stories I was told as a child. Greater minds than mine need to ponder the texts and do the linguistic analysis, but I see nothing which indicates that in the beginning humans were on a permanent vacation and life was pleasure island!

The same is true of the second account in chapter 2. Adam is a tiller of the earth in Genesis 2:15, he is supposed to work (abad = to labor, to work, to serve) and keep/guard/watch over/protect (shamar). Once again, the text seems to indicate that there was work and that there was a need to care for, even protect, the Garden. What will change with the Fall is the results of the labor. The earth will be cursed and the results of the work will be opposed by thistles and thorns. Things are much worse.

Some may ask, what difference does it make? Well, for one, if humans always had to work, even struggle with the earth, then there is less disonance between the Biblical account and the 'scientific worldview' then we are led to believe. Human sin complicates mattes and makes things worse, but there does not seem to be an idea that the world was "perfect" prior to the Fall. This also means that work is not a curse, but actually part of the original state. The curse is the opposition to our work, not the labor itself.

This will have repurcussions on how we understand our final destiny as well. If we are called to return to an Eden-like existence in God Kingdom someday, perhaps it will include effort and work. Perhaps we are best when we face and overcome challenges. I do not know completely. What I do know is if you actually read the Bible it sometimes says unexpected things. It is God's word, so we do well to listen to it, to ponder and pray and be transformed by it.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (3)

What is the point of the Adam and Eve story if it is not merely giving us the historical facts? First of all, let's look at the story.

We read that God formed (like a potter) man (adam) from the dust (afar) of the ground (adamah). There is a play on the Hebrew words here (adam//adamah). The joy of Hebrew is the constant use of such puns and allusions. Most of it does not get picked up in English translation. There are, however, some theological points to reflect upon.

The intimacy of creation is portrayed with the image of forming. To take and touch and manipulate is an involved process. One might call it a labor or work. If this is a metaphor (and it is) what is it inviting us to believe? I think the potter image lies behind the text, an image which Isaiah will pursue in his own prophecies. I think the language of shaping and forming is helpful for expressing our connectedness to God.

The idea of humans being composed of dust is also fascinating. One criticism of evolution is that it reduces humans to high functioning apes. Let me be clear, I believe that philosophical evolution is in error. I do not have time to lay that out here. I believe God CREATED heaven and earth. I do not believe it is accidental. That said, I also believe the act of creation is reflected in the creation. In that sense, the process probably 'looks' like what is called evolution. If God used the earth to form man, is it possible to understand that formation as taking place over a long period of time? Can the image be a metaphor for something that looks like the theories of science? Once again, I am asking questions of the text. I think we need to ask if a faithful reading can include this.

The word for dust is also interesting. Dust has multiple meanings and includes rubbish. We have some sense of this based on the word "dust pan" which is used to collect what we sweep up from the floor. The word dust appears several times in Genesis. It is used here to indicate from what the man is created and to what man will return at death (3:19). Then it is part of the curse on the serpent (you shall eat dust on your belly). Later God tells Abraham (13:16) and Jacob (28:14) that their descendents will be like the dust (lots and lots!). I think, however, the most important use is Genesis 18:27.

In Genesis 18 Abraham is arguing with God about Sodom. He is trying to prevent God's judgment on the wayward city. It is a remarkable case of driving a deal, as Abraham makes one slice after another, on the number of righteous needed to save the city. However, as Abraham begins the negotiation, he says, "I who am ashes and dust am speaking to the Lord." This is a dep theological statement, and I think it reflects the creations accoun.

The creation account is a reminder of our tenuous existence. It is a reminder that no one is great, no one is powerful, everyone is temporary. It is an invitation to recognize our dependence upon God for existence and serves as a harsh condemnation of those who see no need of God. The story is clear, even if it is not considered a detailed historical account. I think we are called to humility; to understand we are of earth and will return to earth, to understand that we must turn to the Creator for life. I fear the power of the revelation is lost when it is instead used to debate the actual process by which humans were created.