The other day a parishioner came up to me before eucharist and said, "I saw a TV show last night where they said that Jesus did not rise. That really scared me." He talked about the importance of the resurrection and reaffirmed his belief that Jesus had risen. But he had clearly had a brush up with a terrifying idea. On Thursday, one of the people connected with the Jesus Seminar addressed our diocesan clergy. He is a leader in proposing an alternative, more "sceptical" view of Jesus. I did not attend. I teach a bible study on Thursdays. I also do not need to hear him. I have heard enough of that stuff. I have been taught and read about the scarey idea that Jesus died and that was it. It is in my head and it won't go away. Ideas that are like verbal atom bombs, threatening to wipe out our foundation in life.
Some words are hard to forget, especially bad words. Some images are hard to wash out of our head, especially bad ones. It is one reason why the church of my youth emphasized "avoiding the near occassion of sin." There was a list of forbidden books and a list of condemned movies in those days. Unfortunately, like the forbidden fruit of the garden, being on the forbidden list seemed to make it more alluring and increased the temptation. A book needed an imprimatur, a bishop's approval that it should be printed. Such an idea is so offensive to us in our culture that it no longer occurs. We Christians (the majority) read most anything and watch most anything. Efforts to do anything about it are called the work of "thought police" and are viewed negatively.
Now I am not advocating a return to the 1950's. It truly had its own problems. Still, I also know that the doubts that plague me are the result of a culture which portrays Christian faith in negative light. There are lots of "atom bombs" which are placed in our memories. We are bombarded with thoughts, ideas, images which will destroy the fouundations of faith and morality. I used to think that it was an act of courage to wrestle with doubt. As a younger man I viewed it as my duty to engage such things in order to understand why so many of my contemproraies rejected the faith. I thought it was my duty as an apologist. Doubt and faith, I thought, were partners.
Then I read John Chrysostom. He was a great preacher and bishop who lived over fifteen hundred years ago. Turns out John thinks doubt is a bad thing. He advocates feeding faith and starving doubt. I think that is good advice.
To grow as Christians we need to stretch and challenge ourselves. On the other hand, we need to feed the faith and not starve our souls. Where to draw the line on what to read, what to watch, who to listen to? Not sure. That is the struggle. But watch for the fruits in your life. And do not kid yourself, some ideas are like worms eating away at your soul.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
RIP Fr. John Sterling
For the last week I have visited Trinity Hospice where a dear friend, Fr. John Sterling lay dying. His death last night, at 7:30 pm, was a welcome relief in many ways. Fr. John was 84 and had buried his wife about six years ago. At her funeral, a part of him died as well. He was never the same. For a time he continued working at St. Andrews, and I believe that this work was a source of meaning for him. Then he had a stroke on the altar. He recovered enough to return to work, but there was a difference. He had always preached from a text, but now it was noticably more difficult for him. One Sunday he had low sugar and again he went down on the altar. He returned a short time later, but it was clear that his time had passed.
It is a sad thing to witness the decline of any person, but especially someone as sweet and loving as John. The last two years, he has been home. He handed over his license. He was sad. I called periodically and went by to see him from time to time. He readily expressed his desire to be done with the earth. He made it clear that he would do nothing to hasten his own end, but made it just as clear that his end could not come soon enough.
Sunday, March 20, marked the seventeenth anniversary of my mother's death. My daughter was born almost exactly a year later. My kids never met her. Perhaps some day they will. I do not know how family connections work in the afterlife. Some people are sure that we will be back together with our kin folks. Such family reunions may be heaven for some. Other people say that if they are with their family for eternity it would be hell. I think that is worthy of pondering, too. I am not sure about family reunions in heaven, but I am clear that the central focus will be the Triune God. We are there to love and serve HIM. Everyone else will be secondary.
Fr. John, was called Fr. Love here. He was much gentler and sweeter than I am. I used to tell him, "at least they like you!" He always had a twinkle in his eye and was known for his jokes. His last sermon here, two years ago, was like hearing the Gospel from Bob Hope. But 'Love' and 'Hope' were part of his faith. He was someone who loved and served the Lord. He had a great sense of joy. He was beloved as well as loving. Now he is gone. As I sat with his corpse, praying, I found myself wondering if he was there with me, seeing it all. In those near-death books people claim that they saw family members around their dead bodies. The Bible does not tell us much about the process of dying. It gives us hope that death is not the final word. But I still find myself wondering. Where is he now? What is it like? Is there a purging needed or is there a process of transformation that takes place quickly and painlessly. What do the spirits of the departed do all day? Is there an "all day" on the other side, or is it timeless and "eternally now"? Lots of question, not many answers. But I do know that John entrusted his life to Jesus and tried to live as a follower of Jesus. That is the only answer I do have. I will share with you the two things he said to me most often: "The Lord does not tell us that we have to be successful, just faithful" and "We need to say our prayers and do our best and leave the rest to the Lord." That is a nice epitath.
It is a sad thing to witness the decline of any person, but especially someone as sweet and loving as John. The last two years, he has been home. He handed over his license. He was sad. I called periodically and went by to see him from time to time. He readily expressed his desire to be done with the earth. He made it clear that he would do nothing to hasten his own end, but made it just as clear that his end could not come soon enough.
Sunday, March 20, marked the seventeenth anniversary of my mother's death. My daughter was born almost exactly a year later. My kids never met her. Perhaps some day they will. I do not know how family connections work in the afterlife. Some people are sure that we will be back together with our kin folks. Such family reunions may be heaven for some. Other people say that if they are with their family for eternity it would be hell. I think that is worthy of pondering, too. I am not sure about family reunions in heaven, but I am clear that the central focus will be the Triune God. We are there to love and serve HIM. Everyone else will be secondary.
Fr. John, was called Fr. Love here. He was much gentler and sweeter than I am. I used to tell him, "at least they like you!" He always had a twinkle in his eye and was known for his jokes. His last sermon here, two years ago, was like hearing the Gospel from Bob Hope. But 'Love' and 'Hope' were part of his faith. He was someone who loved and served the Lord. He had a great sense of joy. He was beloved as well as loving. Now he is gone. As I sat with his corpse, praying, I found myself wondering if he was there with me, seeing it all. In those near-death books people claim that they saw family members around their dead bodies. The Bible does not tell us much about the process of dying. It gives us hope that death is not the final word. But I still find myself wondering. Where is he now? What is it like? Is there a purging needed or is there a process of transformation that takes place quickly and painlessly. What do the spirits of the departed do all day? Is there an "all day" on the other side, or is it timeless and "eternally now"? Lots of question, not many answers. But I do know that John entrusted his life to Jesus and tried to live as a follower of Jesus. That is the only answer I do have. I will share with you the two things he said to me most often: "The Lord does not tell us that we have to be successful, just faithful" and "We need to say our prayers and do our best and leave the rest to the Lord." That is a nice epitath.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Drawing the Line: Bible 3
I believe the Bible is God's Word. It is authoritative. It is divinely inspired.
Yet, I have questions. I do not want to join those on the left who nit pick the Scripture and seek every opportunity to produce reasons to not believe the Word. On the other hand, what type claim can I make for the Bible?
I believe that much of today's problem comes from adopting a certain world view, one which is foreign to the Bible. In arguments about the creation accounts or Noah's ark, I have come to see that we are sometimes asking questions which the Bible is not designed to answer. Our view of history (as fact) is not accurate to the reality of historical writing. The post-modern criticism has some truth to it. Our perspectives very much impact how we see things. I think God is communicating to us in The Word, but we must remember that it is written in a time and place where the world view is different. This is not an attack on the Bible, it is an honest attempt to actually hear what the Bible is saying.
There are two things I want to briefly offer for reflection. One, the claim that every single word is placed there by God. If that is true, then why are there alternative readings? We do not know what the correct reading is in isolated places. There are conflicts between texts. That is why there are places where footnotes occur in our English Bibles to inidcate "other ancient authorities..." For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:4 some texts say "thanks to God" while others say "thanks to my God." In 1 Corinthians 1:14 some say "I am thankful" while others say "I thank God." Now, this does not lead me to toss my Bible away. In fact, when this sort of thing is used as proof that the Bible is not true I find myself saying, "Are you kidding me?" The presence or absence of the possessive pronoun destroys the authority of Scripture? But on the other hand, if as some say, God is so concerned about every word and letter in the Bible why did He not preserve it?
If authority rests on claims about inerrancy which make an issue out of every word, then I certainly understand why so many young Evangelicals have given up the faith. We make them believe something which seems to be contradicted by their own observation. In a culture which emphasizes each person's autonomy that is a recipe for disaster. We see it in the widespread decline of Church attendance. I think we need to think through our claims about what inspiration means and what exactly the implications are.
A second issue, also taken from 1 Corinthians 1:14-15. ("I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.") I have no problems with this. Paul is making a theological point and wants to illustrate it by refering to baptisms he administered. In identifying those persons, he suddenly remembers someone else. It then seems that he realizes that this is beside the point and he goes on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the Gospel..." But if we make extreme statements about Biblical infallibility and inerrancy the question is raised. Is Paul inerrant in saying he does not know whether he baptized anyone else? Is the correction about the household of Stephanas an indication that the previous claim about Crispus and Gaius was in error? What about the switch from enumerating the baptismal record and sort of minimizing its importance in light of his preaching ministry? I understand why the word "Scritpural inerrancy" is just not helpful here.
Once again, I do not raise these issues as a clarion call to reject Scriptural authority. What I am doing is raising the question of how to understand it. There are Bible believers who have, I think, misunderstood the results of Divine inspiration. I think there are truth claims made in conformity with Positivism and Modernistic understanding of truth (as mere observable accuracy) by well meaning believers which produce major problems for contemporary souls struggling to find God in an aggressively secular world.
I have read and studied too much Scripture to not marvel at the intricacies of the interrelationship between texts. I have been touched to my core in places. But I also know that when I hear some claims about the truth of the Bible, it seems to be too much hype. The sickness of my soul has been the horror of finding those instances (like in 1 Corinthians Paul) and wondering about the truth of the Bible. I refuse to gloss over it and I refuse to pretend it isn't there. I do not always know where to draw the line on trustworthy, true and inerrant. I believe. This morning I will preach the Biblical text, twice. I will proclaim it as God's word. I will listen to what He says. And I will trust His message. But I will also continue my journey in understanding what the Bible is and what Truth means.
Yet, I have questions. I do not want to join those on the left who nit pick the Scripture and seek every opportunity to produce reasons to not believe the Word. On the other hand, what type claim can I make for the Bible?
I believe that much of today's problem comes from adopting a certain world view, one which is foreign to the Bible. In arguments about the creation accounts or Noah's ark, I have come to see that we are sometimes asking questions which the Bible is not designed to answer. Our view of history (as fact) is not accurate to the reality of historical writing. The post-modern criticism has some truth to it. Our perspectives very much impact how we see things. I think God is communicating to us in The Word, but we must remember that it is written in a time and place where the world view is different. This is not an attack on the Bible, it is an honest attempt to actually hear what the Bible is saying.
There are two things I want to briefly offer for reflection. One, the claim that every single word is placed there by God. If that is true, then why are there alternative readings? We do not know what the correct reading is in isolated places. There are conflicts between texts. That is why there are places where footnotes occur in our English Bibles to inidcate "other ancient authorities..." For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:4 some texts say "thanks to God" while others say "thanks to my God." In 1 Corinthians 1:14 some say "I am thankful" while others say "I thank God." Now, this does not lead me to toss my Bible away. In fact, when this sort of thing is used as proof that the Bible is not true I find myself saying, "Are you kidding me?" The presence or absence of the possessive pronoun destroys the authority of Scripture? But on the other hand, if as some say, God is so concerned about every word and letter in the Bible why did He not preserve it?
If authority rests on claims about inerrancy which make an issue out of every word, then I certainly understand why so many young Evangelicals have given up the faith. We make them believe something which seems to be contradicted by their own observation. In a culture which emphasizes each person's autonomy that is a recipe for disaster. We see it in the widespread decline of Church attendance. I think we need to think through our claims about what inspiration means and what exactly the implications are.
A second issue, also taken from 1 Corinthians 1:14-15. ("I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.") I have no problems with this. Paul is making a theological point and wants to illustrate it by refering to baptisms he administered. In identifying those persons, he suddenly remembers someone else. It then seems that he realizes that this is beside the point and he goes on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the Gospel..." But if we make extreme statements about Biblical infallibility and inerrancy the question is raised. Is Paul inerrant in saying he does not know whether he baptized anyone else? Is the correction about the household of Stephanas an indication that the previous claim about Crispus and Gaius was in error? What about the switch from enumerating the baptismal record and sort of minimizing its importance in light of his preaching ministry? I understand why the word "Scritpural inerrancy" is just not helpful here.
Once again, I do not raise these issues as a clarion call to reject Scriptural authority. What I am doing is raising the question of how to understand it. There are Bible believers who have, I think, misunderstood the results of Divine inspiration. I think there are truth claims made in conformity with Positivism and Modernistic understanding of truth (as mere observable accuracy) by well meaning believers which produce major problems for contemporary souls struggling to find God in an aggressively secular world.
I have read and studied too much Scripture to not marvel at the intricacies of the interrelationship between texts. I have been touched to my core in places. But I also know that when I hear some claims about the truth of the Bible, it seems to be too much hype. The sickness of my soul has been the horror of finding those instances (like in 1 Corinthians Paul) and wondering about the truth of the Bible. I refuse to gloss over it and I refuse to pretend it isn't there. I do not always know where to draw the line on trustworthy, true and inerrant. I believe. This morning I will preach the Biblical text, twice. I will proclaim it as God's word. I will listen to what He says. And I will trust His message. But I will also continue my journey in understanding what the Bible is and what Truth means.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Locker Rooms and God's Call
I have been writing about the authority of Scripture the last couple days. I want to share something that happened yesterday afternoon in the locker room of the YMCA. I was getting changed to work out and I heard the sweet little voice of a young boy. He said, "Dad can I get a little help?" I turned and looked but saw no one. I heard the father say, "Where are you son?" and a moment later the dad appeared from behind a row of lockers and he began opening lockers nearer to me. First one, nothing, then another, and there he stood, a little boy of about four. With a big happy smile on his face he stepped out of his temporary prison. Soon he and his dad began discussing their lunch plans. The little guy wanted Taco Bell, but as they walked out the door it appeared he was over ruled.
What did that have to do with the Bible? First of all, when the father asked, "Where are you?" I heard echoes of the Scriptures, the Garden of Eden and the Father calling out, "Adam where are you?" In the plea of the child I heard the human situation, the most sincere prayer we ever make, "Dad can I get some help here?"
"Abba Father, Dad, I seem to have gotten myself in trouble here, can you get me out?" That is pretty much the OT story of Israel, over and over. It is my story and yours, too. Most of our problems are, in one way or another, of our own handiwork. We are in need of saving, redeeming, rescue, help, healing, and deliverance.
Something else that struck me was the contrast from the story I read about a week or so ago. In that story a woman was suing an airline because a steward had put her child in an overheard bin. Supposedly, the child had been so traumatized that for many months he was unable to sleep. I do not know what to think about all that, but I did find myself wondering about the lack of distress in the locker room child. Then it hit me, he knew the father was there. He knew, locked in this dark, tight space, that Dad was in reach, out there ready to save him. There was no panic, he had faith in Dad. He was saved by faith, he trusted his Dad and Dad delivered. He was also under Dad's authority. He was not going to eat at Taco Bell.
The Biblical narratives of Genesis, Exodus, Judges and the writings of Paul all made their appearance, uninvited and unexpected yet welcome, in my mind as this little event unfolded. The story of Jesus magically appeared with the word "Dad." And I had a close encounter with God through His revelation of Himself in Scriptures I have read and studied and a locker room conversation between a little boy and his young father. As I continue to wrestle with theological questions about the authority of the Bible, I want today's reflection to be one of the main points. God speaks to us in His Word. He speaks to us in locker rooms. God speaks, we need ears to listen. The Word is given to us for that encounter: A Holy, Eternal Dad and His little child, locked up in human frailties and need.
What did that have to do with the Bible? First of all, when the father asked, "Where are you?" I heard echoes of the Scriptures, the Garden of Eden and the Father calling out, "Adam where are you?" In the plea of the child I heard the human situation, the most sincere prayer we ever make, "Dad can I get some help here?"
"Abba Father, Dad, I seem to have gotten myself in trouble here, can you get me out?" That is pretty much the OT story of Israel, over and over. It is my story and yours, too. Most of our problems are, in one way or another, of our own handiwork. We are in need of saving, redeeming, rescue, help, healing, and deliverance.
Something else that struck me was the contrast from the story I read about a week or so ago. In that story a woman was suing an airline because a steward had put her child in an overheard bin. Supposedly, the child had been so traumatized that for many months he was unable to sleep. I do not know what to think about all that, but I did find myself wondering about the lack of distress in the locker room child. Then it hit me, he knew the father was there. He knew, locked in this dark, tight space, that Dad was in reach, out there ready to save him. There was no panic, he had faith in Dad. He was saved by faith, he trusted his Dad and Dad delivered. He was also under Dad's authority. He was not going to eat at Taco Bell.
The Biblical narratives of Genesis, Exodus, Judges and the writings of Paul all made their appearance, uninvited and unexpected yet welcome, in my mind as this little event unfolded. The story of Jesus magically appeared with the word "Dad." And I had a close encounter with God through His revelation of Himself in Scriptures I have read and studied and a locker room conversation between a little boy and his young father. As I continue to wrestle with theological questions about the authority of the Bible, I want today's reflection to be one of the main points. God speaks to us in His Word. He speaks to us in locker rooms. God speaks, we need ears to listen. The Word is given to us for that encounter: A Holy, Eternal Dad and His little child, locked up in human frailties and need.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Drawing the Line: Bible 2
A reminder, my primary audience is people who are struggling with 'the faith question.' I hope that I can be of support to others who are in the faith walk as well.
There is a raging debate on the authority of Scripture. At times the debates seem to boil down to one of two positions: Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God or are you a faithless Modernist? I think that neither of these options is accurate. In fact, many Christians have lost their faith in recent years because they were only given these two options. They hunger for a middle way which was never identified.
So back to the two options. The extreme version of the Modernist view is that the Bible is a collection of religious writings witnessing to religious experiences from an ancient people. As such, the things they wrote were authoritative to them, but we live in a different world. (The Jews believe God chose them, but so does every other people so the Bible can't be right!) Anything that does not fit into our world view is tossed out as not relevant. Moral norms that do not fit contemporary norms are ignored (or villified) as holdovers from a flawed culture. As I read somewhere recently, many of these folks treat the Bible like a High School term paper, and not a very good one at that.
On the other hand, others make claims about the infallible nature of the text. They demand that because we are under the authority of Scripture: Every detail is historically accurate. Every word is straight from God's mouth. To quote a bumper sticker I saw many years ago: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Where do I find myself in this? Well, as you might guess, the first view makes me sick and I think it is flat wrong. It replaces God with "Me" as the final authority. (Or worse, the current popular culture.) I prefer the second view. I much prefer it. It is clean and simple and a great way to be obedient. It is also, unfortunately, not exactly true. I tried really hard for a long time to hold that position. It just doesn't work.
If I have integrity, then I must admit that there are places where the Biblical accounts are not always historically accurate (based on a Positivist view of history). This freaked me out in a huge way for many years. I had bought into the premise that either the Bible is totally true and accurate in every detail or it is untrustworthy as a witness and useless. I bought into the assumption that God is perfect so therefore the Bible shares in His nature and it is perfect. I battled for the Bible because it was my only hope for knowing God. (I also did this because I had adopted the Modernist world view and tried to fit the doctrine of inspiration and authority into Modernist thought categories)
Then I learned about more about Jesus. The Jesus of my youth was God. Period. I knew He suffered on the cross, we were real clear on suffering. I saw Jesus crucified before my eyes, sometimes in graphic detail, at most churches I attended. But the humanity I knew about Jesus was pretty super-human. He was (in my understanding) God dressed up like one of us. It was many years later that I learned that this is heresy. Probably lots of the Progressive types in our churches today had a similar journey of understanding. Unfortunately, what happened to them, repeats the battles of the early church. Those people tried to correct their view that Jesus is 'only God' and ended up in a place where He is reduced to 'only human.' It is an understandable error. In any system, there is a tendency to "over correct" and to then err in the other direction. I think that the analogy of Jesus is helpful for understanding the Bible. It is God's Word, YES! (thanks be to God!) but it is also a fully human book. It was not God delivered from the sky. It was written by human hands (under God's inspiration). That fact makes it a bit trickier than the bumper sticker makes it look.
To use another analogy, from the old catechism of my youth:
Q. Who made me?
A. God made me.
Q. How did God make me?
A. Umm, well. you see there is this thing.... O, just go home and ask your mom and dad
I made up that last part, but I hope you see the point. Did God make me or did my parent's sex act? It is not terribly difficult to say both, is it? What about the Bible? Who authored the Bible? GOD!!! How did God author the Bible? Through a very long, human shaped process that looks just like human authorship. How then do we read the Bible? With the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!
Where to draw the line on the Bible? It is fully human, yet fully conveys God's word. Is it trustworthy even if there are discrepencies? I have based my life on it and I believe it!
And we make choices about one another because of our different views of the Bible.
There is a raging debate on the authority of Scripture. At times the debates seem to boil down to one of two positions: Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God or are you a faithless Modernist? I think that neither of these options is accurate. In fact, many Christians have lost their faith in recent years because they were only given these two options. They hunger for a middle way which was never identified.
So back to the two options. The extreme version of the Modernist view is that the Bible is a collection of religious writings witnessing to religious experiences from an ancient people. As such, the things they wrote were authoritative to them, but we live in a different world. (The Jews believe God chose them, but so does every other people so the Bible can't be right!) Anything that does not fit into our world view is tossed out as not relevant. Moral norms that do not fit contemporary norms are ignored (or villified) as holdovers from a flawed culture. As I read somewhere recently, many of these folks treat the Bible like a High School term paper, and not a very good one at that.
On the other hand, others make claims about the infallible nature of the text. They demand that because we are under the authority of Scripture: Every detail is historically accurate. Every word is straight from God's mouth. To quote a bumper sticker I saw many years ago: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Where do I find myself in this? Well, as you might guess, the first view makes me sick and I think it is flat wrong. It replaces God with "Me" as the final authority. (Or worse, the current popular culture.) I prefer the second view. I much prefer it. It is clean and simple and a great way to be obedient. It is also, unfortunately, not exactly true. I tried really hard for a long time to hold that position. It just doesn't work.
If I have integrity, then I must admit that there are places where the Biblical accounts are not always historically accurate (based on a Positivist view of history). This freaked me out in a huge way for many years. I had bought into the premise that either the Bible is totally true and accurate in every detail or it is untrustworthy as a witness and useless. I bought into the assumption that God is perfect so therefore the Bible shares in His nature and it is perfect. I battled for the Bible because it was my only hope for knowing God. (I also did this because I had adopted the Modernist world view and tried to fit the doctrine of inspiration and authority into Modernist thought categories)
Then I learned about more about Jesus. The Jesus of my youth was God. Period. I knew He suffered on the cross, we were real clear on suffering. I saw Jesus crucified before my eyes, sometimes in graphic detail, at most churches I attended. But the humanity I knew about Jesus was pretty super-human. He was (in my understanding) God dressed up like one of us. It was many years later that I learned that this is heresy. Probably lots of the Progressive types in our churches today had a similar journey of understanding. Unfortunately, what happened to them, repeats the battles of the early church. Those people tried to correct their view that Jesus is 'only God' and ended up in a place where He is reduced to 'only human.' It is an understandable error. In any system, there is a tendency to "over correct" and to then err in the other direction. I think that the analogy of Jesus is helpful for understanding the Bible. It is God's Word, YES! (thanks be to God!) but it is also a fully human book. It was not God delivered from the sky. It was written by human hands (under God's inspiration). That fact makes it a bit trickier than the bumper sticker makes it look.
To use another analogy, from the old catechism of my youth:
Q. Who made me?
A. God made me.
Q. How did God make me?
A. Umm, well. you see there is this thing.... O, just go home and ask your mom and dad
I made up that last part, but I hope you see the point. Did God make me or did my parent's sex act? It is not terribly difficult to say both, is it? What about the Bible? Who authored the Bible? GOD!!! How did God author the Bible? Through a very long, human shaped process that looks just like human authorship. How then do we read the Bible? With the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!
Where to draw the line on the Bible? It is fully human, yet fully conveys God's word. Is it trustworthy even if there are discrepencies? I have based my life on it and I believe it!
And we make choices about one another because of our different views of the Bible.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Drawing the Line: Bible 1
I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I proclaim this belief out loud, almost every day, and I have professed this belief a myriad of times and in a wide variety of places. I am not embarassed by this and do not consider it to be simple-minded or deluded.
I live in (metro) Memphis. I came here in ninth grade. I was a Catholic boy in a Protestant ocean populated by lots of Baptists. There were also Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians and countless others. I was taught that Jesus died to save me. I was also taught to live right or I would end up in Hell. I was taught to pray every day and do good things for others. I was taught to go to church every Sunday and Holy Day. I was taught to obey the commandments. For the most part I bought into all of it and I tried relatively hard to do what I was supposed to do. Fortunately, I had confession available when I fell short. So there was hope.
In January, 1976, I made Cursillo. It was my "born again" experience. I went to a deeper level with Jesus and intensified my commitment to Him. I pondered faith more. I also began reading the Bible. The first book I ever read was James. I read Matthew alot. There was no bible study at my church. The typical Catholic church back then did not really do that. So I started a bible study with some friends. A bunch of nineteen year olds need guidance, which we did not have. Unfortunately we ended up in the law. I remember reading about men fighting, a woman reaching out and touching a man in his private place and the punishment. Needless to say, we all began giggling and laughing. (teen aged boys have limits!). We got clear real quick that we needed a guide. Our next effort was to listen to tapes on the bible. We got one on Revelation. It was a "Late, Great Planet Earth" reading of the Apocalypse and it was scarey and interesting. It helped me be clear that I did not want to be left behind with Anti-Christ.
For the next two years I read my bible and went to church. One day an old high school friend came by. He had been saved and wanted me to be saved, too. I was sort of happy to see him, but as we talked some of what he said confused me. I asked him where Baptists came from and he told me "John the Baptist." I asked him where Catholics came from and he said, "some drunk guy." (teen aged boys have limits!) This was not the first time I had heard anti-catholic sentiments, but it was the strongest expression of it I had ever encountered.
Over the years, my love affair with Scripture and my ecumenical nature ("can't we all get along?") have reshaped my Catholicism. I am considered quite Evangelical for a Catholic. I am told I preach like a Baptist. (I preached once at a funeral at Bellevue Baptist, a super big church in Memphis. Adrian Rogers, their pastor, was present. After the service he told me, "You are very bold.") On the other hand, in seminary, my Master's thesis was "A Catholic Response to Fundamentalism." I am not a literalist or a fundamentalist as many people use the term. My understanding of Scripture is more nuanced (and CONFUSING!).
When people read the bible today, they often read it like a modern work. I am not sure that is a good way to read the bible. My assumption is that the best way to read the bible is under the teaching authority of the church. Many of my friends believe that it is their role to interpret the scriptures for themselves. They reject any authority other than the bible and the Holy Spirit. There is an appeal to this latter view point, but as I have seen in our Episcopal church debates about issues like marriage, it seems that when a group of people sit down with the bible there is a wide diversity of "readings." One of my beloved parishioners who is left of center used to complain that I preached too much on obedience. I countered that obedience is a major theme of the bible. She did not buy that. One day I told her to read Titus and Timothy. She did. "Well," I said, smiling and assured that she now understood that true doctrine and obedience were part of the deal, "what did you read?" "Love," she replied, "all I saw was love." You will not be surprised that some time later she wrote me a note saying that I made her sick and she was going to a church where they preached love.
This is a long introduction to the next area upon which I want to reflect. Where do we draw the line on our different readings of the bible? What about authority? What about interpretation? How do we determine issues of literal vs. figurative? When we say "do what the bible says" are we really all that clear on what the bible says? If we are so clear, why are there so many debates and arguments and endless denominations? In the post-Christian world these are vital questions. Many have wandered from the faith and not all of them are progressives and Catholics. There is a crisis of faith in the church.
I live in (metro) Memphis. I came here in ninth grade. I was a Catholic boy in a Protestant ocean populated by lots of Baptists. There were also Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians and countless others. I was taught that Jesus died to save me. I was also taught to live right or I would end up in Hell. I was taught to pray every day and do good things for others. I was taught to go to church every Sunday and Holy Day. I was taught to obey the commandments. For the most part I bought into all of it and I tried relatively hard to do what I was supposed to do. Fortunately, I had confession available when I fell short. So there was hope.
In January, 1976, I made Cursillo. It was my "born again" experience. I went to a deeper level with Jesus and intensified my commitment to Him. I pondered faith more. I also began reading the Bible. The first book I ever read was James. I read Matthew alot. There was no bible study at my church. The typical Catholic church back then did not really do that. So I started a bible study with some friends. A bunch of nineteen year olds need guidance, which we did not have. Unfortunately we ended up in the law. I remember reading about men fighting, a woman reaching out and touching a man in his private place and the punishment. Needless to say, we all began giggling and laughing. (teen aged boys have limits!). We got clear real quick that we needed a guide. Our next effort was to listen to tapes on the bible. We got one on Revelation. It was a "Late, Great Planet Earth" reading of the Apocalypse and it was scarey and interesting. It helped me be clear that I did not want to be left behind with Anti-Christ.
For the next two years I read my bible and went to church. One day an old high school friend came by. He had been saved and wanted me to be saved, too. I was sort of happy to see him, but as we talked some of what he said confused me. I asked him where Baptists came from and he told me "John the Baptist." I asked him where Catholics came from and he said, "some drunk guy." (teen aged boys have limits!) This was not the first time I had heard anti-catholic sentiments, but it was the strongest expression of it I had ever encountered.
Over the years, my love affair with Scripture and my ecumenical nature ("can't we all get along?") have reshaped my Catholicism. I am considered quite Evangelical for a Catholic. I am told I preach like a Baptist. (I preached once at a funeral at Bellevue Baptist, a super big church in Memphis. Adrian Rogers, their pastor, was present. After the service he told me, "You are very bold.") On the other hand, in seminary, my Master's thesis was "A Catholic Response to Fundamentalism." I am not a literalist or a fundamentalist as many people use the term. My understanding of Scripture is more nuanced (and CONFUSING!).
When people read the bible today, they often read it like a modern work. I am not sure that is a good way to read the bible. My assumption is that the best way to read the bible is under the teaching authority of the church. Many of my friends believe that it is their role to interpret the scriptures for themselves. They reject any authority other than the bible and the Holy Spirit. There is an appeal to this latter view point, but as I have seen in our Episcopal church debates about issues like marriage, it seems that when a group of people sit down with the bible there is a wide diversity of "readings." One of my beloved parishioners who is left of center used to complain that I preached too much on obedience. I countered that obedience is a major theme of the bible. She did not buy that. One day I told her to read Titus and Timothy. She did. "Well," I said, smiling and assured that she now understood that true doctrine and obedience were part of the deal, "what did you read?" "Love," she replied, "all I saw was love." You will not be surprised that some time later she wrote me a note saying that I made her sick and she was going to a church where they preached love.
This is a long introduction to the next area upon which I want to reflect. Where do we draw the line on our different readings of the bible? What about authority? What about interpretation? How do we determine issues of literal vs. figurative? When we say "do what the bible says" are we really all that clear on what the bible says? If we are so clear, why are there so many debates and arguments and endless denominations? In the post-Christian world these are vital questions. Many have wandered from the faith and not all of them are progressives and Catholics. There is a crisis of faith in the church.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Drawing the Line: Marriage 2
(There is so much emotion involved in this issue it is almost impossible to talk about.)
In Christian morals we are taught that we are to love God and love our neighbor. In current culture, love is a feeling. "Love is a feeling" leads to the assumption that more intense feelings are more sincere forms of love. So to "lose that loving feeling" is to stop love. The biblical model for love (and this is way simplified) is more connected to the will and to action. When we love our enemy it does not mean that we are suddenly swept away with 'warm bubblies' for them. Love is the decision to seek the best for another, to treat them as I would want to be treated. Love is also associated with obedience in the Bible. To love God is to obey God.
Why is obedience so hard? Because we have not ordered our desires according to God's desires. The word Original Sin is helpful here. When someone is living right, their desires are in right order. Right order means that we desire the right thing, in the right amount, in the right way. Right order also means that we choose to do things which are right. Hence, sin comes from "disordered appetites." In other words, we strongly desire to do things which we are not supposed to do.
Years ago, when I engaged in regular discussions/debates about this issue, I once had someone write to me "you are saying there is something wrong with me." I was struck dumb. I never, ever doubted that there is something seriously wrong with everyone. EVERYONE. In discussion, it was clear that this young man did not believe that. An analogy. I wear glasses. I started neeeding glasses as a young child, around fourth grade. I did not know I needed glasses. The way I saw the world was the only way I had seen it. When I got my glasses, I literally walked down the street in awe of the world. I was especially amazed at trees. You could see each leaf. It felt like a miracle. By extension, I live in a world where my perception is affected by my "vision." Each of us, every one of us, all of us are morally flawed. We have desires which are not 'right' and we engage in actions which are not 'right.' The teaching of the church is God's gift to people who do not see clearly. Without my glasses I can honestly argue about how I see things, but only a fool would trust me to drive a car. It is not my fault that I cannot see better. It is not a choice. It is certainly not fair. It is wrong that other children made fun of me, including my own siblings ("four eyes!"). It is not fair that my glasses fog up when I enter a room in the winter, or that rain blurs my vision because the glass gets drops on it. It is however, the way things are. And there are much worse things to be in America than visually challenged.
So why stay in the Episcopal church? Well, mainly because it is good preparation for what is coming. Society is changing. I have many friends who tell me how sweet it is to be in a church where this issue is not a problem. As I see it, there is increasing push to make it criminal to not accept gay marriage. Not sure any church is safe. Looking at recent trends it is pretty unnerving. Church-going progressives are much easier than secular progressives. I also think I have a duty to stand for the truth. I am doing that. But the truth is so-called conservatives have had sex out of marriage, have divorced and have had marriages where they prevented the conception of children. Jesus said it is what is in your heart: Lord have mercy! Does anyone feel confidant that their hearts are clean? Sometimes there is gay bashing going on and some of it is because Conservatives are unwilling to face their own sin. I never hear about churches taking a stand against gluttony and obesity. I never hear about churches telling unrepentant gossips that they cannot use the church facility or receive communion. I never hear about "covet" detectors checking out the congregation for people who are greedy to have someone else's car or home or job. Fact is, there is some truth to the charge that the position we espouse is in some cases fueled as much by unease about gays as by theology.
On the other hand, Progressives always pull a bate and switch. They talk about love, as if the traditional position outlaws love between two men or two women. We are talking about sex acts. Two men who love each other passionately, EXCELLENT! Two men having sex together, sorry, misses the mark. Human body design is pretty clear. (Unless you totally disconnect sex and procreation which is not Christian) To destroy the institution of marriage in order to make that possible is SIN. And someone who says this is not necessarilly homophobic. In fact, most people I know are not homophobic. Many of them have gay children. They have gay friends. They just are compelled to not ignore God's word because of those relationships/feelings.
I think this debate will end badly for people like me. In the name of "inclusion and love" folks like me will be denied access to a living in many places. We will be accussed of hate crimes. We will be ostracized. It is what happens in revolutions. Fact is, it is already happening and with greater frequency. The ruling class is accused of oppression and the reform government takes over. A few years later, a new ruling class imposes its will on people. Based on the Epsicopal church, progressives are not nicer people, they are as vicious and cruel and unfair as conservatives. They deny that which makes them even more dangerous.
The horror in all this is church history reveals that when believing Christians are in charge there is oppression, unfairness and abuse of power. However, when the society is governed by other values, which are inherently non-Christian, it becomes a nightmare. The law of unintended consequences cannot be escaped. Neither can this issue. No matter where you go to church and who you have fellowship with, there are sinners there. Each of us must make a decison which sinners we are willing to worship alongside. Each of us must determine where God would have us do this. In the end, God is our only hope. He will judge. He will save. Tomorrow on to other issues!
In Christian morals we are taught that we are to love God and love our neighbor. In current culture, love is a feeling. "Love is a feeling" leads to the assumption that more intense feelings are more sincere forms of love. So to "lose that loving feeling" is to stop love. The biblical model for love (and this is way simplified) is more connected to the will and to action. When we love our enemy it does not mean that we are suddenly swept away with 'warm bubblies' for them. Love is the decision to seek the best for another, to treat them as I would want to be treated. Love is also associated with obedience in the Bible. To love God is to obey God.
Why is obedience so hard? Because we have not ordered our desires according to God's desires. The word Original Sin is helpful here. When someone is living right, their desires are in right order. Right order means that we desire the right thing, in the right amount, in the right way. Right order also means that we choose to do things which are right. Hence, sin comes from "disordered appetites." In other words, we strongly desire to do things which we are not supposed to do.
Years ago, when I engaged in regular discussions/debates about this issue, I once had someone write to me "you are saying there is something wrong with me." I was struck dumb. I never, ever doubted that there is something seriously wrong with everyone. EVERYONE. In discussion, it was clear that this young man did not believe that. An analogy. I wear glasses. I started neeeding glasses as a young child, around fourth grade. I did not know I needed glasses. The way I saw the world was the only way I had seen it. When I got my glasses, I literally walked down the street in awe of the world. I was especially amazed at trees. You could see each leaf. It felt like a miracle. By extension, I live in a world where my perception is affected by my "vision." Each of us, every one of us, all of us are morally flawed. We have desires which are not 'right' and we engage in actions which are not 'right.' The teaching of the church is God's gift to people who do not see clearly. Without my glasses I can honestly argue about how I see things, but only a fool would trust me to drive a car. It is not my fault that I cannot see better. It is not a choice. It is certainly not fair. It is wrong that other children made fun of me, including my own siblings ("four eyes!"). It is not fair that my glasses fog up when I enter a room in the winter, or that rain blurs my vision because the glass gets drops on it. It is however, the way things are. And there are much worse things to be in America than visually challenged.
So why stay in the Episcopal church? Well, mainly because it is good preparation for what is coming. Society is changing. I have many friends who tell me how sweet it is to be in a church where this issue is not a problem. As I see it, there is increasing push to make it criminal to not accept gay marriage. Not sure any church is safe. Looking at recent trends it is pretty unnerving. Church-going progressives are much easier than secular progressives. I also think I have a duty to stand for the truth. I am doing that. But the truth is so-called conservatives have had sex out of marriage, have divorced and have had marriages where they prevented the conception of children. Jesus said it is what is in your heart: Lord have mercy! Does anyone feel confidant that their hearts are clean? Sometimes there is gay bashing going on and some of it is because Conservatives are unwilling to face their own sin. I never hear about churches taking a stand against gluttony and obesity. I never hear about churches telling unrepentant gossips that they cannot use the church facility or receive communion. I never hear about "covet" detectors checking out the congregation for people who are greedy to have someone else's car or home or job. Fact is, there is some truth to the charge that the position we espouse is in some cases fueled as much by unease about gays as by theology.
On the other hand, Progressives always pull a bate and switch. They talk about love, as if the traditional position outlaws love between two men or two women. We are talking about sex acts. Two men who love each other passionately, EXCELLENT! Two men having sex together, sorry, misses the mark. Human body design is pretty clear. (Unless you totally disconnect sex and procreation which is not Christian) To destroy the institution of marriage in order to make that possible is SIN. And someone who says this is not necessarilly homophobic. In fact, most people I know are not homophobic. Many of them have gay children. They have gay friends. They just are compelled to not ignore God's word because of those relationships/feelings.
I think this debate will end badly for people like me. In the name of "inclusion and love" folks like me will be denied access to a living in many places. We will be accussed of hate crimes. We will be ostracized. It is what happens in revolutions. Fact is, it is already happening and with greater frequency. The ruling class is accused of oppression and the reform government takes over. A few years later, a new ruling class imposes its will on people. Based on the Epsicopal church, progressives are not nicer people, they are as vicious and cruel and unfair as conservatives. They deny that which makes them even more dangerous.
The horror in all this is church history reveals that when believing Christians are in charge there is oppression, unfairness and abuse of power. However, when the society is governed by other values, which are inherently non-Christian, it becomes a nightmare. The law of unintended consequences cannot be escaped. Neither can this issue. No matter where you go to church and who you have fellowship with, there are sinners there. Each of us must make a decison which sinners we are willing to worship alongside. Each of us must determine where God would have us do this. In the end, God is our only hope. He will judge. He will save. Tomorrow on to other issues!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)