U.S. Constitution and the Bible

I have a deep respect and appreciation for the U.S. Constitution. Few if any countries have used the same defining document for such a long time. Except for the turmoil of the Civil War, the U.S. Constitution has guided this country through the peaceful transitions of government for two and a quarter centuries. This has held up even in times of great division, turmoil and distrust. The U.S. Constitution is remarkable for its brevity, especially when compared with the defining documents of other nations. That is clearly part of its genius. With only a couple of exceptions, the U.S. Constitution has not been used to address transitory issues but sets in place a mechanism for doing so. It has established stable, enduring institutions and processes, while at the same time remaining flexible and adaptable to changing conditions.

 

Having said that, the framers knew it was the imperfect work of imperfect people. From its original form through the years of amendments, the U.S. Constitution has been forged from difficult and sometimes distressing compromises. Perhaps the greatest of these is how it handled slavery that became fertile soil for the Civil War and perpetuated suffering on thousands and thousands of people for generations. The framers knew full well that the U.S. Constitution was not a finished product when they built in a difficult but achievable means of amending it. Its very adoption was dependent on passing the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights.

 

I believe the U.S. Constitution can and will serve the United States well for many generations to come. But I am also uncomfortable with how the U.S. Constitution is invoked in some of the most volatile political debates of our time. To suggest that it is frozen in the eighteenth century is a denial of both the insight of the framers and the realities of the twenty first century. I am even more concerned that this endues the U.S. Constitution with the qualities of inspiration, reliability and authority that, as a Christian, I can only ascribe to the Bible.

 

I can acknowledge God sovereignly working in the processes by which the framers developed the U.S. Constitution. However, that is a very long way from treating it as divine scripture. While some devout, orthodox Christians participated in framing the U.S. Constitution, Deists who overtly disavowed Christianity also had a strong influence. I am not objecting to their influence on the U.S. Constitution, but only objecting to trying to claim this document that does not mention God as somehow Christian.

 

In fact, I am convinced that we Christians and our churches are far better off and have a more vigorous faith when neither government nor social consensus supports a generic religion cloaked with Christian vocabulary. To say “I believe in God” or even “I believe in Christ” is far different than living in faith as a disciple of Jesus. To be satisfied with superficial religion, even with Christian symbols, is to dilute the demands of discipleship. What spiritual benefit is it to expect public officials to mouth religious platitudes which are at best marginal to them?

 

At the time I am writing this, this country is reeling from yet another gun massacre. At a time when we are and should be grieving, the demand to take action to prevent such tragedies in the future is pushing our national mourning to the edges with political posturing over gun laws.

 

This posturing is what has prompted my reflections on the U.S. Constitution. In my high school history and government classes and my college history and political science classes, the “right to keep and bear arms” clause of the Second Amendment was consistently taught as relating to the States keeping standing militias as protection from an armed invasion, especially by a tyrannical central government. While fear of big government is again fueling current political debates, I am not aware of anyone seriously proposing individual States waging an armed insurrection against the federal government. Public opinion and recent court decisions have interpreted the “right to keep and bear arms” clause of the U.S. Constitution as an individual right, and the incentive is the personal right to use deadly force for perceived self-defense.

 

While the interpretation of the clause seems to have evolved in my own lifetime, the “right to keep and bear arms” seems to have become fixed and inviolable by virtue of being in the U.S. Constitution. Yet the circumstances in the twenty first century are far different than they were in 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The rationale has shifted from state militias to individual self-defense. Having recently come through the Revolutionary War with its single load rifles, the framers of the U.S. Constitution could never have imagined the powerful, repeating firearms we have today. . We have grown from a young nation along the Atlantic coast to become a major world power occupying the center of North America from coast to coast. We have gone from an agrarian society in which a gun was a survival tool for providing food as much as for protection (not necessarily from other people) to an urban society in which the density of population raises the risks and consequences of all violence dramatically. I’d like to think that if the founders could look over our shoulders and give us some advice, they’d tell us that there is sufficient flexibility in the Second Amendment to address the current issues that surround guns. They would probably also remind us that we have the power to amend the Constitution to cope with changing circumstances, though probably with a cautionary note about tampering with the Constitution to deal with a transitory issue.

 

Theologically, we Christians ought also to remind our society that neither the U.S. Constitution nor our other laws are Holy Scripture. God did not deliver them to Thomas Jefferson as the Ten Commandments were delivered to Moses as reported in Exodus. To be a nation of laws is good. We can be very thankful for the exemplary quality of our U.S. Constitution which protects our right to worship God and live as faithful disciples of Jesus. We Christians are also called to urge our society to use and modify its laws to maximize justice and peace in the circumstances of our own time.

Can we move from the fear driven debate over guns to love?

Laws are external reflections of broader, underlying social values. The debates over gun laws provoked by tragedies, such as happened this week in Connecticut are the symptom of a deep ambivalence in our society. We want assured security, which is impossible. So we are afraid, and when we respond out of fear, we almost always make the wrong decision.

 

Some folk try to assuage their insecurity by owning guns in the illusory belief that guns will protect them, ignoring the reality that those guns are more of a threat to them and those they love than to a potential criminal. We don’t take seriously Jesus’ words, “Those who live by the sword (gun) will die by the sword (gun).” (Matthew 26:52) Others seek an equally illusory security in laws that are not respected by those with violent intent. Laws may control the behavior of most people, but they cannot determine the character of those who do not share the underlying principle of the law.

 

Only as we acknowledge and address our fear will we be able to have a dialog that can produce a viable consensus. St. John wrote, “Perfect love casts our fear.” (1 John 4:18) The dialog needs to be about how to make love a practical replacement for fear.

 

One part of that has to do with how we handle mental illness. This is more than providing better services. It has to do with truly loving those who suffer from mental illness, so we are not afraid of “them,” and they are not afraid of “us.”

 

But even deeper, we have to surrender our insatiable, impossible insistence on total security. That is not to say we accept threats and dangers, but that we recognize nothing we do will be 100% airtight and not look to lay blame on scapegoats when the reality of human insecurity happens.

 

That gets at a core issue that is even more difficult to address: individualistic self-focus that makes self-defense a paramount value. Whether we think guns or laws will defend us from violent threats, the effect is to elevate ourselves over others, which is to stifle love with fear.

 

Fully recognizing that only a tiny portion of the population consider themselves first and foremost to be disciples of Jesus, as one who aspires to that and to follow his lead, I must surrender my demand for self-defense. That determination took Jesus to the cross and is the life path laid out by St. Paul. (Philippians 3:10-11) To become like Jesus in his death, and attain the resurrection from the dead.

 

Out of love I may do any number of difficult and risky things to protect my family, my friends, my neighbors, even those I don’t know who might think of me as their enemy. But I would like to think that if faced with only these options, I would choose to let an attacker send me into the arms of Jesus than for me to send them to eternal judgment beyond repentance. Can anything less express the love of Jesus?

Merry Christmas?

My earliest recollections of Christmas go back to ‘51 or ‘52 when I was 5 or 6 years old. I definitely remember Christmas cards, downtown stores with elaborate window displays, and front lawn home displays that said “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” as well as “Merry Christmas.” A survey of old movies and antique Christmas cards show that this mix of greetings had already been going on for a long time, and no one was concerned that it was or was not politically correct.

Yes, businesses and our Jewish neighbors (which was a substantial part of the neighborhood where I grew up) tended toward “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays,” but no one accused them of making war on Christmas. Yes, there were calls to “keep Christ in Christmas,” but that tended to be encouragement for Christians' families to focus their celebrations on the birth of Jesus. If someone said to you, “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays” or “Happy Hanukkah” or “Merry Christmas,” you just accepted it as a gesture of good will, not as a call to arms in the culture wars.

I find it ironically amusing that so much of what we nostalgically associate with Christmas comes from the Victorian era by way of Charles Dickens’ 1843 novella A Christmas Carol. The turning point in the story comes as Ebenezer Scrooge awakens from his dreams on Christmas morning, flings open his window and shouts “Merry Christmas!” to the people in the street. Yes, he used “Merry Christmas,” but Jesus is not mentioned in the story. Charles Dickens’ interests were strictly secular and humanitarian. He was actually rather hostile to religion, church and Christianity. So Scrooge’s “Merry Christmas” was not at all about keeping Christ in Christmas.

Clement Clarke Moore’s 1822 poem ‘Twas the night before Christmas ends with St. Nicholas flying off with the greeting, “Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!” but the poem makes nary a reference to Jesus. I do not object to Dickens or Moore or even to Santa Claus as a fun imaginary figure (albeit with an historic, Christian foundation). I am only suggesting that Christmas observances without overtly mentioning Jesus have a long and cherished history. So when someone greets me today with “Season’s Greetings,” “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas,” I accept it as their genuine expression of good will and usually return my own “Merry Christmas,” not to make some kind of statement but simply as a greeting in my own most comfortable way.

As a pastor and one who intends to be a faithful disciple of Jesus, I do take seriously the connections between our language and life of faith. When the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7) say, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (RSV), “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” (NIV), “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God” (NRSV), I’m rather more concerned that invoking the name of Christ for commercial purposes violates this commandment more than if a secular entity or non-Christian person says “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.”

Without intending to be judgmental, I suggest for our contemplation whether it might be a misuse of the name of Christ to promote the sales of inflatable or illuminated lawn ornaments such snowmen and toy soldiers, or the sale of violent video games, or luxurious jewelry and cars. I am not at all opposed to seasonal festivities, symbols and gifts. I am only questioning whether insisting that they be associated with the birth of Jesus detracts from rather than enhances our Christmas celebrations.

For several years I have observed the increasingly strident insistence on “Merry Christmas,” that strikes me as conveying a tone rather contrary to the approach Jesus took with people. This year I am noticing more push-back (of which this piece might be an example). My own assessment is that this push and pull contaminates the joy that we hope to feel as Christmas approaches. I suppose I have engaged in this analysis because that is what wells up in my mind when I am repeatedly prodded by something that troubles me. Actually, my hope would be that I could give and receive well intentioned greetings without having to think about whether some socio-political message is hiding there.

The Harrowing of Hell and Related Inscrutables

Questions about a Puzzling Passage:
1 Peter 4:6 says that Christ preached (preaches?) to the dead. Somewhere else it says that Christ went down to the dead after his crucifixion (doesn't it?) Does this mean that there is a second chance for redemption after death? Would that be for those who never were exposed to the teachings of Christ on earth? Or is it also a second chance for all of us? Or does it mean none of the above?

An Answer:
The “somewhere else’ is the Apostles Creed.

Book of Common Prayer – 1662

I believe in God the Father Almighty,Maker of heaven and earth:And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,Born of the Virgin Mary,Suffered under Pontius Pilate,Was crucified, dead, and buried:He descended into hell;The third day he rose again from the dead;He ascended into heaven,And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.I believe in the Holy Ghost;The holy Catholick Church;The Communion of Saints;The Forgiveness of sins;The Resurrection of the body,And the Life everlasting.Amen.

Common Worship – 2000

I believe in God, the Father almighty,creator of heaven and earth.I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died, and was buried;he descended to the dead.On the third day he rose again;he ascended into heaven,he is seated at the right hand of the Father,and he will come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and the life everlasting.Amen.

1 Peter actually introduces the concept in chapter 3. The commentaries agree about only one thing about this whole section of 1 Peter and the theology associated with it. It presents the darkest, most controversial and difficult exegetical problems of any passage in the Bible.

1 Peter 3:18-20

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

1 Peter 4:6For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.

Other related scriptures:

Job 38:17Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?

Psalm 68:18-22You ascended the high mount, leading captives in your train and receiving gifts from people, even from those who rebel against the LORD God’s abiding there. 19Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears us up; God is our salvation. 20Our God is a God of salvation, and to GOD, the Lord, belongs escape from death. 21But God will shatter the heads of his enemies, the hairy crown of those who walk in their guilty ways. 22The Lord said, “I will bring them back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea,

Matthew 12:38-41Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!

Acts 2:22-32“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. 25For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken; 26therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope. 27For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption. 28You have made known to me the ways of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’ 29“Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. 31Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption.’ 32This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses.

Romans 10:7“or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Ephesians 4:7-10But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.” 9(When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.)

Matthew 16.18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.A few important language issues:

• “Hell” is not the best translation of the Creed. Hell implies the place of punishment for the condemned, but “Hades” (Greek) or “Sheol” (Hebrew) give the understanding of the place for all the dead – righteous and unrighteous. Much of the Old Testament gives little if any clue as to a life beyond these “shades” or “shadows.” Hades and Sheol could just mean the dark hole in the ground that was a grave. So could just mean the darkness in which dead people were gathered. Thus, modern translations of the Creed do not say Jesus descended into hell but to the dead or the place of the dead.

• Gradually, by Jesus’ time, a distinction was made between Paradise or Abraham's Bosom – the state of God-fearing souls and “Gehenna” – the state of ungodly souls. “Gehenna” comes from ge hinnom (“Valley of Hinnom” in Hebrew; 2 Kings 23:10) where the sinful Israelites offered human sacrifices to the Canaanite god Molech. To prevent future idolatry, this was turned into the Jerusalem garbage dump after the Jews returned from exile and was kept continually burning to dispose of garbage and prevent spread of disease. Dead criminals were burned with the garbage as an insult if not punishment. It became a symbol for the fires of the judgment of God associated with Hell.

• The word in 1 Peter 3:19 for Jesus preaching to the dead is kyrusso which means to made a proclamation or an announcement. Elsewhere in the New Testament (including 1 Peter 2:9 and 4:6) euaggelizo is used for preaching the Good News (Gospel). The NRSV properly makes this distinction.

• 1 Peter 3:19 says that Christ “made a proclamation to the spirits in prison,” and 4:6 says “the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead.”

• Some have suggested that Luke 23.43 precludes Jesus’ descent to the dead because he told the thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” However, the placement of the comma is not in the original but added by translators, so could just as well read, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

Here are the basic alternate views:

• In the time of Noah, pre-incarnate Christ preached to those facing the impending judgment of the flood so that they were without excuse.

• Probably at the time between crucifixion and resurrection (though there are variations here), Jesus preached to the dead in Hades/Sheol. These may be Old Testament saints who are liberated from the darkness and brought into the light of God’s presence to await the resurrection

o Pagans who had not heard the “Gospel” of Abraham (the righteous live by faith) and are given the opportunity to accompany Jesus into the light of God’s presence to await the resurrection.

o All who have rejected God’s grace (Hebrew and Gentile alike) who have their doom announced that they are justly excluded from God’s presence.

• Since 1 Peter speaks of Jesus “preaching” to “spirits,” between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus goes to the fallen angels and condemned evil spirits to announce his victory over sin and death, and thus their defeat.

• Thomas Aquinas said Christ descended to two places—hell and purgatory—and that his purpose in each was different. In hell, he put unbelievers to shame, while in purgatory, he gave sinners hope for glory and the righteous deliverance.

• Though rejected by a wide range of theologians, some preachers suggest that Jesus’ death on the cross was just the beginning of his redemptive work, but that it continued by really going to hell and experiencing eternal death and separation from the Father between his crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, his preaching to the dead was in the sense of taking the punishment for human sin in hell.

• William Barclay articulates the meaning of Jesus’ descent to the dead as an affirmation and expression of the power of the Gospel. His death was no sham. He really did die (not just swoon or appear to die, per the Gnostics). His victory over sin and death is universal, even in the abode of the dead. That he preached there means there is no place in the universe or spiritual reality that the message of the Gospel has not come. Thus, no one who has ever lived is left without sight of Christ and without the offer of the salvation of God.

• Some suggest that it was not Jesus personally doing the preaching but all who preached in his name (Hebrew prophets, New Testament apostles, etc.) so the gospel "was preached" in the past to people who are now dead, not that it was preached now by Christ to those who are in the realm of the dead. In other words, preaching (euaggelizo) to those who are now dead was made in the past to call them to repentance and eternal life, while the death of Jesus is a proclamation (kyrusso) of condemnation to those who are now dead who had earlier refused to respond to that preaching.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, much less influenced by rationalistic philosophy, is less inclined to try to explain in detail but to accept paradox and ambiguity, which they portray symbolically in worship and icons. They speak of these passages as the “Harrowing of Hell,” which puts a major emphasis on Jesus victory over death and evil and liberating those who are dead (spiritually as well as physically) from the prison of Hell. Icons are not pictures of events but are windows into spiritual realities. Here are a few things to look for in icons of Jesus’ resurrection.

• Jesus is not lying inactive in the tomb between crucifixion and resurrection but to invade hell not to suffer but to fight and free those who are trapped there.

• He brings light into the darkness and the darkness disappears.

• He brings life to death and mortal life becomes eternal life.

• The risen Christ stands victorious at the center of the icon, dressed in heavenly white surrounded by the star studded light of the glory of God.

• Jesus pulls Adam and Eve out of their graves. As our first parents and the ones who brought sin into the world, releasing them to eternal life represents the redemption of the whole human race and the reversal of the fall. They reach out to Jesus, waiting for him to rescue them. He pulls them by the wrist, as it is his grace, not their works, by which they receive eternal life.

• John the Baptist and Old Testament saints gather around Jesus, rejoicing that the redemption to which they looked forward has been accomplished.

• The devil and demons are trampled under the feet of Jesus.

• The broken locks and chains of those who have been released are scattered on the floor of hell.

• Jesus stands on the broken down doors of hell. They could not keep him out or prevent him from liberating people from death. They are often shown as having fallen in the form of a cross, the instrument of their defeat.

Living In Tents Blog

For a couple of years I wrote a blog for the Central Christian Church (Dallas, TX). Since I am no longer their pastor and they may not continue to post them indefinitely, I have reposted them as a unit here. I have adopted as a metaphor for my life the image of Abraham living in tents as a foreigner in the land God had promised him. (Hebrews 11:9-10) It inspires me to a light, flexible, portable life. I want to cherish every moment, possession, location, relationship as a gift to be held loosely, with generosity and gratitude. It protects me from clinging to the transitory while savoring the present. It calls me to a journey with unanticipated twists and turns that still leads to a secure destination. It tunes me to the voice of God, constantly coaxing me toward the presence of Christ. These entries are the field notes of my pilgrimage. You are invited to respond from your own journey.

Sami family in front of a traditional Sami tent, circa 1900.

Survivors of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake living in tents.

These photos are not Abraham’s nomadic tent, nor are they the sort of tents with which I have camped. However, they each connect to my family’s roots. The photo on top is from Lapland. My paternal grandfather came from Lapland at the north end of Sweden. Though he was a Swede and not Sami, he lived among them. The photo on the bottom is contemporaneous with the family living in a tent after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. My maternal grandmother lived in Oakland, California at the time of the quake and helped care for the displaced residents of San Francisco. In the faces in these photos I see my own face and the face of Christ.

Anybody Listening?

Date Published: 05/11/2009

William Brosend wrote a provocative piece in the April 21, 2009 Christian Century (pp. 12-13), that took my reflections on John Cunyus’ musings on whether Jesus was pleased with Easter Sunday worship.

He wrote how he was talking to a preachers’ workshop about “the Sundays we know ‘they’ will be there – Easter, Mother’s Day, a baptism in the family and Christmas Eve. But here’s the kicker: they do not want to be there. Their body language and facial expressions shout, ‘Can we go now?’ They are uninterested, unconvinced and certainly unimpressed. How do we preach to them?”

He got an immediate response from the preachers in the workshop. “Those people are in the congregations every Sunday. Half the congregation almost didn’t show up. These uninterested, unconvinced and unimpressed would rather be anywhere else – not necessarily playing golf or watching a game, but maybe doing their taxes or painting a closet.”

Ouch!

We just got past Mother’s Day. A few people were in our worship to be with their mothers, and a few went elsewhere for the event. The culture calls for warm sentimentality, but the ranks of those who are excluded are legion: those grieving deceased mothers, mothers who have lost children, women who have been unable to be mothers, those alienated from the mothers, mothers deeply concerned about alienated children. I even know people who wouldn’t miss worship any other Sunday who stay home on Mother’s Day to avoid the pain.

I have often observed what an awesome, terrifying thing it is to stand before God’s people Sunday after Sunday and presume to speak on God’s behalf. I take this responsibility very seriously and invest time and energy in prayer, study, planning, writing, practice and more prayer every week. Yet, I know the folly of thinking that those twenty minutes make much of an impact.

So when we came to the invitation to respond to God at the end of Sunday’s Mother’s Day service, I was amazed and gratified when Ken Aten came to the front to tell the congregation that being with the congregation for Sunday school and worship made Sunday the most exciting day of his week.

Apologizing for Apologetics

Date Published: 05/04/2009

John Cunyus’ exploration of the question, “why don’t people believe in the God of the Bible?” in his Living Large blog, prompted me to do just a bit more than comment on his observations. I suspect John’s insights are most correct where they are most pointedly uncomfortable. But reading John’s blog took me back to evangelism methods from The Four Spiritual Laws to Evangelism Explosion, to apologists such as Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, to scare-em out of hell apocalyptic movies. Not to paint with too broad a brush, but the common thread is to lead (or push) people to an inevitable conclusion, to force a for-or-against Jesus decision. A decision against Jesus (or God) was set up in such as way as to suggest a moral flaw or deficient mind. Maintaining mutual respect in an ongoing dialogue was not the goal.

I am inclined to think that any form of coerced faith is probably not authentic and unlikely to endure, whether the coercion comes in the form of overwhelming intellectual arguments or fear (or even family and cultural norms). In the Gospels Jesus calls people to follow him. He won’t dilute the cost of discipleship, but he never disrespects the one who doesn’t follow. He certainly doesn’t offer people intellectual arguments for why following him is rational.

My own conclusion is that people are loved into faith, not as a method or path to faith but as the experience of having faith. John’s image of the gun-to-the-head-prayers strike me as having less to do with believing in God than in the desperation of the moment. Certainly people have crossed into faith in the midst of traumatic experiences. But given the dangers of daily living, everyone who has survived to adulthood has had plenty of traumatic experience, but that doesn’t lead inexorably to faith.

The Apostle Paul’s discussion of the foolishness of the Gospel and the reverse wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16 exposes the ineffectiveness of arguing people into faith. So if people don’t believe because of the rational arguments, they also do not persist in unbelief because the arguments are unconvincing. Apologetics as evangelism is both misguided and ineffective. The value of Christian apologetics is for the confidence and understanding of the believer. This divine wisdom is understood from the inside out, not to get the outside in.

Classic Reformed theology says that only the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit causes someone to believe. Yet, we all experience personal choice and responsibility. Classic Wesleyan theology emphasizes the importance of human will and choice. Yet, John Wesley himself was not convinced by either his theological training or his frightening shipboard storm experience but by his heart “strangely warmed” in a Moravian meeting. This is not a resolution but only an acknowledgement of the conundrum.

I am increasingly wary of the question: “Do you believe in God?” In our post-Enlightenment, now post-modern world, that seems a lot like saying “I am or am not convinced that something (someone) is or is not there, regardless of the evidence either way.” It seems to be to rather abstractly divide people into us and them but make little difference in the way people on either side of the divide actually live, except to point out how foolish the people on the other side are.

While I know that theology matters and matters deeply, and while as a Christian I subscribe to “humble orthodoxy” (to borrow from G. K. Chesterton), my starting point is knowing that I have been encountered by a God who believes in me, which makes a lot more difference than what I believe about God.

Breakdowns Beyond Berlin

Date Published: 11/09/2009

In Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. (Ephesians 2:13-14 NRSV)

If irresistible politics could bring down the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, what walls could resist the power of Christ? Believing that, why do we Christians still have so much trouble with walls of race, nationality, ethnicity, language, economics, class, culture, education, politics, even theology? If we Christians refuse the power of Christ’s irresistible grace, how can we expect our communities and countries to break down the dividing walls of hostility?

Bristol Palin’s Break-Up with Levi Johnston

Date Published: 05/19/2009

What follows is a personal, pastoral perspective and emphatically not a political statement one way or another on Sarah Palin’s political career or positions, nor on abstinence only sex education. I definitely don’t want differing opinions on those issues to distract from my pastoral concern.

Bristol Palin is to be commended for graduating from high school, which many teen mothers either skip or delay. While I’m sure it is awkward and difficult, I think she is also to be commended for breaking up with and not getting married to Levi Johnston, the father of her child. I am not opposed to teen parents getting married, but in my years of pastoral ministry, I have seen a lot of negative outcomes from marriages compelled by wanting to “do the right thing.” I would suggest that “the right thing” is for the couple to be sure they have a solid basis for marriage beyond conceiving a child together. That can usually be best discerned a year or so after the baby is born. Pastorally, I generally discourage a rushed wedding for expectant teen couples before the baby is born.

During the presidential campaign I was occasionally asked for my opinion about Sarah Palin’s Vice-Presidential candidacy during Bristol’s pregnancy. Since as a pastor I avoid going public with my personal political opinions, I deferred as much as possible. Now that it has no political implications, perhaps I can be open about what I think I would have told Sarah Palin if I had been her pastor and she asked for my input. I would have suggested not running for Vice-President as a way to communicating to Bristol that she was a higher priority and more important than even such a significant career opportunity. I would suggest that at such a time giving family top attention will pay long-term benefits. Any number of people could be Vice-President of the United States but only Sarah could be Bristol’s mother. Without a doubt, these two young people and their families could have addressed these issues much more comfortably in the privacy of family and church than in the glare of global media attention of U.S. Presidential campaign.

Having said that, crises come and life goes on. So I wouldn’t have suggested that Sarah Palin resign as Governor of Alaska. However, she would certainly have needed to make some adjustments. One of the important lessons of life is learning how to keep moving forward, making course corrections without getting derailed when events take an unexpected or unwelcome turn.

Bullying

Date Published: 10/14/2010

All kinds of commentators - TV, radio, print - are addressing bullying. In this political season, I have a couple of questions.

Are political attack ads a form of bullying? Do they teach how to bully? Do they give approval to bullying?

Is it possible to create political ads or dialog that allow for directly questioning one's political opponent about ethical and other issues without the personal attacks that approximate bullying?

Burning Books and September 11

Date Published: 09/12/2010

“A number of those who practiced magic collected their books and burned them publicly.” (Acts 19:19)

With all of the attention the small congregation in Florida has gotten for threatening to burn copies of the Quran, I thought about the people of Ephesus who had been practicing magic and burned their books when they turned to Christ. Though book burning has come to be a symbol of fear laden intolerant and ignorant totalitarianism, it is reported in Acts 19:19 as a sign of faith and the totality of conversion. I have heard it used as a president for getting teens to burn their rock-and-roll records (a little more dramatic than deleting MP3 files).

Right off the top of my head, disposing of something that is a spiritual snare to you seems quite different than a public spectacle to protest something you disagree with or find offensive. The ancient Israelites were regularly commanded to destroy idols and other accoutrements of pagan worship, which today we would probably consider to be the destruction of valuable archeological and cultural artifacts. Even Christians objected to the Taliban destroying the giant Buddhas in Afghanistan on that basis.

Probably thanks to the huge media attention they have both received, the so-called “ground zero mosque” and the “international Quran burning day” have become linked. This exposes the collision of several important American values: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, tolerance of diversity. If these had not offended so many volatile sensitivities, an abstract application of freedom of religion and freedom of speech would suggest both the so-called “ground zero mosque” and the “international Quran burning day” should have proceeded with minimal attention. This raises the question of the boundaries of American tolerance for diversity.

However, my commitments as a Christian far out rank traditional American values. Nevertheless, as a Christian I appreciate and value freedom of religion and freedom of speech as conducive to practicing and articulating Christian faith. I also appreciate and value the diversity of expressions of Christian faith, but I really don’t want to be associated or identified with some who claim to be motivated even commanded by “Christian” principles do things I find utterly inconsistent with Jesus, such as publicly burning Qurans. This is not to say that some people didn’t find Jesus offensive, but those who were offended by him were the most outspoken defenders of theological and moral orthodoxy of his day and not the pagan Romans who were occupying Israel at the time.

Christians in the United States have differing understandings of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but their differences of opinion about tolerance for diversity stretch their common identity in Christ, sometimes to the breaking point. For the Church’s first three centuries and in much of the world for much of the history since then, Christians have been a marginalized and often maligned minority. Whether Christians should tolerate even bizarre alternatives and competitors was never the question; the issue has usually been how to get non-Christians to tolerate Christians. For Christians to be in the seat of cultural power determining the limits of tolerance for diversity is not only an historical but I believe a theological aberration.

Authentic evangelism does not depend on defeating non-Christians militarily, culturally or intellectually. Coerced conversion is hollow if not fraudulent. I have come to believe that an effective Christian response to Islam (or any other alternative to Christ for that matter) depends on understanding why it appeals to people, what need in their lives is met by embracing it? When we respect the spiritual yearnings of people, we can offer Jesus as the one who can satisfy those yearnings much more effectively. Of course, that means that Jesus is meeting my deepest yearnings, and I am not seeking my satisfaction in any human invention, even the American dream.

So as an American, I am most reticent to forbid the burning of books as an expression of free speech. As a Christian I want to be absolutely clear that intentionally offending non-Christians is not only inconsistent with the character of Jesus, it is evangelistically counterproductive. I may need to dispose of influences in my life and home that are spiritually harmful to me, but I must never treat what someone else values disrespectfully as a way of insulting them.

As an American, I am most reticent to limit the practice of other religions, including the building of a mosque at any site where a Christian church could be built. It is axiomatic that rules that are put in place to limit non-Christian religions are often turned around to limit Christians. Nevertheless, I understand that for many of my fellow citizens Islam is so closely identified with those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 that the “ground zero mosque” seems an insult to those who died there (even though many of them were Muslims). However, as a Christian I want to treat Muslims the way Jesus and the Apostles treated the Gentiles of their day, with a respectful and winsome invitation to a new way of life. If I was giving advice to the imam of the “ground zero mosque,” I think I would suggest that seeking another location would help Americans have a more positive attitude about Islam, just as I would suggest that Christians should repudiate “international Quran burning day” to help Muslims have a more positive attitude about Christ.

Camera as Icon-Eye into Spiritual Reality

Date Published: 12/06/2009

As I prepared for my June 2004 pilgrimage to Rome, I wrestled with what to do about a camera. I wanted to be a pilgrim savoring and relishing spirit enriching experiences, not a tourist preoccupied with documenting the sights. For one thing, the density of sights was so intense that even the most avid photo-tourist would have to be selective. I quickly began to see that my camera could be a kind of icon-eye to sharpen my acuity for sacramental images, that is the tangible sights that offered insight into God’s spiritual reality that touched me. I still ended up with about 150 pictures, some of which undoubtedly are touristy.

Above the stairway leaving the Monastery and Church of St. Benedict in Subiaco is a statue of Benedict with an inscribed blessing for those who visit. I certainly felt the light of God’s blessing as I visited each place on this pilgrimage, which I hope to take with me everywhere I go. Though not a major piece of magnificent sculpture or a central attraction, this became to me an icon of the purpose of my pilgrimage, to purposely bask in Christ’s light.

I was captivated by the smiling expression of Christ in the ceiling mosaic at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Church of the Holy Cross) and the ceiling fresco at the Monastery of St. Benedict. I took these as windows to Christ’s smile on me as I yearn to be close to him amid the realities of pastoring a struggling congregation and trying to launch a floundering year old son into adulthood. It spoke to me of Psalm 147:11, “The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him.” They allow me to adopt for myself the expression Brennan Manning extracts from the apostle John, “I am the one Jesus loves.”

The cross is the most widespread and readily recognized Christian symbol, and crosses and crucifixes were ubiquitous in Rome. Many were highly ornate, and others were elegant in their simplicity. When our guide pointed out the absence of crosses in the catacombs, I was a little surprised, which helped me attend to and appreciate some of their more common symbols: the Good Shepherd, Chi Rho, birds, people at prayer and worship. But I was enthralled by two crosses. One was on the Pascal Candlestick in St. Paul’s Basilica dating from 1186 CE and reputed to be the first known crucifix depicting Jesus on the cross. Its primitive presentation gives me a sense of immediacy, of entering with the sculptor into the suffering of Jesus. The other cross that fascinated me was the one hanging over the altar in the upper church in the Basilica of St. Benedict in Subiaco. Its unusual shape and texture seem to be an extension of the rock walls of the cliffs and caves that remain exposed and unadorned, congruent with St. Benedict’s three years in his stone hermitage. With the symbols of the four evangelists on the four arms of the cross and Christ portrayed in resurrection if not ascension glory, this cross conveys to me the hope of the Gospel. Its earthiness and luminescence fuse the realities of my daily living with hope, not just of ultimate redemption but of flashes of present glory.

All over Rome we saw flags proclaiming “pace” (peace). In one of the churches many hundreds of written prayers were tucked in every crevice and heaped in a deep accumulation around the base of a statue, even post-it-notes stuck to the hem of the statue’s robe. A mother was helping a young girl write a prayer and try to get it on to the statue. One prayer open on the base read in Italian “peace in Iraq.” Pagan grave markers were inscribed “D.M.” (to the gods) but in the catacombs and other Christian burial markers read “IN PACEM” (in peace). I reflected on our yearnings for peace in the world and in the Church, not just between Protestants and Roman Catholics, but among the people of our congregations. The floor grate in the baptistery of St. Lateran which read “CHRISTUS PAX NOSTRA” (Christ our peace) evokes my longings for peace and centers that longing in Christ. Whether that specific casting is that ancient or not, this site goes back to the time of Constantine, the Fourth Century. Turmoil has plagued the world, the Church and the lives of individual Christians through all these centuries, yet this piece blends my prayers for peace with those of these generations of Christians, and it centers me in Christ so I can be at peace within, even when surrounded by turbulence.

Can the Center Hold?

Date Published: 06/30/2010

If Elena Kagan is confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, the court will have six Roman Catholics and three Jews but no Protestants. This is just one sign of the changing cultural landscape for the United States in the twenty-first century. On the one hand, some have expressed deep concern at what seems to be the loss of a shared value core for this society. On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution and democratic values preclude a religious test for public office.

A generically Protestant cultural consensus informed the development of the Constitution in 1789. This does not imply either widespread authentic Christian faith nor any sort of theocratic model for government. As immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe brought substantial Roman Catholic and Jewish populations to the United States, the cultural consensus gradually broadened to become generically Judeo-Christian. Since the last half of the twentieth century, the portion of the population has grown that would have to be considered secular. Some are convinced atheists, but most are people who are just indifferent to religion. Along with that has come a growth among those who practice non-Judeo-Christian religions. Some are immigrants but many are long-time Americans who have adopted these religious practices and worldviews.

As the cultural consensus that defined the American identity becomes broader (more truly secular people in a more pluralistic society with a growing non-Judeo-Christian population) our society is becoming increasingly fragmented and polarized. My analysis of some of the movements on the political right is that they are attempting to re-establish a specifically Protestant cultural consensus (with or without actual Christian faith). And some of the movements on the political left are attempting to preserve protection from religious coercion whether by act of law or force of culture.

Many of us, for whom our faith in Jesus Christ is the defining core of our lives, find this cultural shift unsettling. For generations we have been comfortable in a society that welcomes and reflects at least some minimal version of Christianity, even though we know it does not produce authentic Christian faith. We fear that our way of life is becoming marginalized. Some even fear that what we think of as America cannot survive without some residue of Protestant cultural consensus.

My own perspective is that as the society in which I live (the commonality of the Americas and Europe) becomes increasingly secular and pluralistic, it becomes more and more similar to what the early Church experienced before the “conversion” of Constantine and the “Christianization” of the Roman Empire. For the spiritual health and well-being of the Church, I suggest that we Christians not invest our energy in trying to return to Christendom or a Protestant cultural consensus, but that we devote our attention and energy to learning how to live and speak as an outside voice, how to become alternative society in which only Jesus is Lord.

That will not be a unified program or movement. Rather it will be conscientious conversations among ourselves and in the public square of some very different questions than are now receiving attention (more heat than light) in both political and religious circles.

1. Can the center hold?
2. What is a legitimate cultural center for a large diverse country like the United States?
3. What can Christians contribute to defining the cultural center of a secular, pluralistic society?
4. If the center does not hold, how should Christians conduct their own lives, their churches and live with their neighbors?

Christianity and Islam In Secular Society

Date Published: 06/05/2009

With President Obama having made his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, awareness of Islam and Muslim people is up. However, the perspective of global politics that comes through the media is only a partial picture. Because of my involvement with ThanksGiving Square’s Interfaith Council and a few other interfaith contacts, I have at least been able to get acquainted and have some personal conversation with some Muslim folk. I would have to say that geo-political issues have had almost nothing to do with these relationships. As a Christian whose faith shares Abrahamic roots with my Muslim friends, I am much more interested in exploring where our faiths converge and diverge. Those with whom I have had conversation seem also to share this interest.

One of the convergences is as those who believe God has an objective moral expectation of human beings, both Christians and Muslims share the common challenge of how to articulate and practice personal and community righteousness in a pluralistic culture and secular society. Since the Christian Church was a minority faith on the fringes of the Roman Empire, sometimes violently persecuted, for its first three centuries, we have some history that can guide us in living in a hostile, secular, pluralistic society. Mohamed’s vision was a total society completely submitted to God, so modern Muslims have a different challenge when figuring out how to practice their faith outside of a Muslim country. Though we read in the news about the Sunni-Shiite division in Islam, the differences in how to approach practicing Islam in a non-Muslim society may be their great issue of the 21st Century.

Christians And Muslims Share Common View of Secular Society

Date Published: 06/19/2009

The Berlin Wall was still standing, and the death throes of Soviet communism were just off the horizon. I was in Urbana, Illinois in December 1987 for InterVarsity’s student missionary conference. The relentless theme that unsettled not only the students but the veteran missionaries and pastors who were there was that Marxism had been bankrupted and was no longer a compelling competitor to Christianity. Rather, global Islam was emerging with the moral power to attract spiritually hungry people in the dawning generation. What seemed remote just 22 years ago is an inescapable present, daily reality.

On Sunday, June 14, 2009 I heard Christopher Caldwell interviewed on KERA for “To the Best of Our Knowledge.” His book “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West” explores European particular challenges devout Muslims pose for the largely secular European societies as their native populations age and decline. I was especially intrigued by observations about the greater difficulties Muslims are having in Europe than in the United States. He went on to say that many Muslims in Europe feel they have more in common with those in Europe who openly identify themselves as practicing Christians than they do with the majority secular population of Europe. Christopher Caldwell went on to say that both Islam and Christianity impart to their adherents a value system totally foreign and incomprehensible to secular Europeans.

Christopher Caldwell did not elaborate with much specificity, but he did hint at what I am convinced that secular people find both incomprehensible and dangerously threatening. That is a God who has an objective presence independent of and beyond human intelligence and experience. God calls for loyalty and a vision of righteousness that supersedes human institutions, including nations. Islam and Christianity both offer an identity as humans and people of faith that is more powerful and binding than race, ethnicity, language, politics or nationality. Both Islam and Christianity envision a future that transcends mortality.

Though Christopher Caldwell was comparing and contrasting the experience of Muslims in Europe with those in the United States, he prompted me to ask about the trends in the culture of the United States. Do not Christians and Muslims in the United States have more in common with each other than either has with their secular neighbors? By virtue of being long term residents through a long evolution of culture, we Christians have become comfortable with the secular tenor of our society, putting a thin veneer of cultural Christianity over the secular. In a church saturated city like Dallas, we may be somewhat removed from the much more overtly secular environments of other parts of the country, especially on the coasts. But even here, beneath a tough and persistent veneer of cultural Christianity, secular thinking prevails and is spreading. Being more recent arrivals, our Muslim neighbors don’t have this comfort and may confuse Christian and secular Americans.

I’m not at all suggesting that Islam and Christianity are interchangeably equivalent. Rather, I am asking if our response to Islam is primarily as Americans, do we not dilute the power and appeal of faith in the living Christ? Just as Soviet style communism eventually bankrupted, so secular pluralism cannot instill hope in the spiritually hungry. I would suggest that when as Christians we recognize that we have more in common with our Muslim neighbors than with our secular neighbors, we will be more effective inviting the outcasts, victims and refugees of secularism to a living faith in Jesus.

Coping with a Down Economy

Date Published: 04/27/2009

From the business pages with investment columns to the society pages with advice columns, plenty of people have advice on how to cope with the down economy. From how to handle your retirement account to managing your daily budget, from dealing with anxiety and depression to how to talk to a friend who just lost a job (or how to tell a friend that you lost your job), everyone wants to be an expert on what to do in a down economy.

I have no economic expertise, and very little psychological expertise, but I’m not going let that stop me from contributing my idea for coping with a down economy. Someone might call it pastoral, spiritual or theological, but I’m only going to claim to be passing along my own insight without trying to put on a label to boost credibility. You’ll just have to read and decide if it makes sense to you.

Extravagant generosity is the most effective way to cope with a down economy.

I’m not really thinking about how much money to give away but about an attitude that looks for ways to help other people with whatever economic or emotional challenges they may be facing. This attitude gets your mind off of your own problems. It shifts your mental energy from fretting over the negative into how to contribute something positive. It promotes the creativity of figuring out how to make limited resources accomplish more. It give the satisfaction of knowing you have done someone some good.

I’m not just thinking of how helping someone else might actually help me but that extravagant generosity actually builds community. It bonds people to each other. It encourages working together. In such a community individuals find their value in contributing to the whole – cooperation over competition. Everyone has something to give and something they can receive, so resources and energy are deployed for maximum effectiveness.

Because I am a pastor, my mind naturally turns to biblical examples of extravagant generosity in economic distress. But I am reluctant to name one lest it be construed as some sort of proof that my insights are biblically validated and thus beyond critique. Nevertheless, I’ll risk identifying the Macedonian Christians who “during a severe ordeal of affliction, their abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For, as I [the Apostle Paul] can testify, they voluntarily gave according to their means, and even beyond their means, begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints.” (2 Corinthians 8:2-4)

Definition of Marriage

Date Published: 05/28/2009

The debate over same-sex marriage that is underway in the United States revolves around civil equal protection issues such as rights of property and inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision making. Concerns such as social structure and stability and welfare of children come into the discussion but offer little guidance because of their subjectivity. In our secular, pluralistic country, religious principles are necessarily excluded from the legal conversation.

Yet, many weddings are performed by clergy in the context of religious ceremonies. Every religion teaches about marriage in a way that is intrinsic to its understanding of divine purpose for humans. Perhaps the public debate over same-sex marriage can draw Christians into enlightening conversation and more profound understanding of marriage theology, without necessarily agreeing with each other about public policy.

I think a candid acknowledgement that the traditions and customs that English speaking, North American Christians associate with wedding and marriage are not found in the Bible is in order. The biblical narrative does not report a single religious wedding ceremony presided over by a religious official, though it does report some wedding celebrations (Jacob with Leah and Rachel in Genesis 29:22 and Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana from John 2:1-11) The Bible does not speak about a marriage license, though it does mention certificates of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 5:31) The Hebrew Scriptures routinely report polygamy and concubinage without direct comment, but unflinchingly shows the tensions and conflict that come with it. (Jacob with Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah in Genesis 29-30; Solomon’s harem in 1 Kings 11) The Bible makes no mention of Temple, synagogue or church, nor the state sanctioning or regulating marriage, but the cultural customs of time and place are assumed.

Yet the biblical writers do give practical, relational instruction on the value and joy of marriage and on how to treat your spouse. The wonder and delight of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:23-25 becomes the touchstone for Jesus’ response to easy divorce that devastated women (Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10). Even the Apostle Paul, who some read as anti-marriage, not only tells couples to love each other (Ephesians 5) also told Christians not to divorce their unbelieving spouses (1 Corinthians 7). Though these ancient words still speak to us deeply, we struggle with how best to live by them in the 21st century.

I believe that underlying the diverse examples of marriage and the range of marriage instruction in the Bible is a consistent concept that both radically determines that nature of marriage and is completely outside the bounds of civil law and public policy. That is to see marriage as a sacramental or iconic demonstration of God’s covenant love for the community of faith. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of God as the husband of Israel and Judah, often contrasting God’s faithfulness with the infidelity of the people. (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:20; 31:32; Ezekiel 16; Hosea). The New Testament speaks of the Church as the Bride of Christ (Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelation 19:7-9; 21:2-9; 22:17; Ephesians 5:32)

Of course, this is a metaphor and not systematic theology. Yet, I would suggest that it is not a bare symbol but works at a deeper level in which the sign and that which it signifies are intrinsically connected. I have used the words sacramental and iconic to try to get at this, in the sense that something tangible, in this case the marriage relationship, conveys a spiritual reality. I would hold with the classic definition the Reformers used for sacraments: given by Jesus for the Church in which something tangible conveys a spiritual reality. That works wonderfully for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While marriage was given by God (not Jesus per se) at creation for all humanity, I would not consider it to be a sacrament (thus I follow Protestant theology). However, I do believe that all marriages, even the marriages of unbelievers, even deeply flawed marriages, do convey albeit imperfectly, something of the spiritual reality of God’s covenant love for the community of faith. In that sense, for those with spiritual awareness, marriage becomes iconic. That is, by looking through the marriage, the spiritual reality beyond can be perceived.

Not only do I not expect public policy about marriage to reflect this sacramental/iconic understanding of marriage. I also don't expect it to resolve the differences of opinion about same-sex marriage among Christians. I don’t want any government nor a secular, pluralistic society to either try to form or dismiss this way of thinking about marriage. Limiting conversation marriage to civil law or moralism only touches the surface of the wonder and joy that is marriage.

Don’t Blame the Parents of Adult Children

Date Published: 07/07/2010

On this day (July 7, 2010) when Dallas Police Chief David Brown is scheduled to return to work two weeks after his son was killed in a shoot out that left a Lancaster police officer and a young father dead, I feel compelled to acknowledge the risk of pain as the parent of adult children. Having only recently been named Dallas Police Chief, taking a couple of weeks for personal family leave is awkward but legitimate, necessary and understandable. Unfortunately, considerable controversy has swirled around the actions of some of those left in charge during this leave, which came before Chief Brown had opportunity to establish his leadership. Most unfortunately, the most volatile of these decisions touched Chief Brown’s family (the motorcycle escort for his son’s funeral and the assignment of an officer to assist the family). Though it appears Chief Brown was not culpable or even privy to these decisions, it has brought his ability to lead the department into question.

However, my concern is not so much with Chief Brown’s professional life as with family life for all parents of adult children. As both a pastor for 35+ years and as a parent for 38+ years, I have plenty of experience with the risk of pain of being the parent of adult children. As children emerge out of adolescence into adulthood, they almost inevitably make some decisions and take some actions that are out of sync with their parents’ hopes, expectations and teaching. Sometimes these are the benign steps of distinguishing themselves from their parents which lead to healthy independence. Sometimes they are short-term missteps that are corrected by life’s natural consequences. They can lead children down a different and sometimes conflicting path than their parents. After some journeying, some of these do return to a path that more closely approximates that of their parents. Occasionally, the decisions and actions of adult children take irremediable and tragic turns that parents are powerless to prevent, over which they have no control.

Old Testament heroes Eli, Samuel and David all had tragic experiences with their adult children. I know that plenty of preachers and writers have analyzed how these fathers’ failures contributed to their son’s tragedies, and I know that none of us parents do everything right all of the time. Yet, plenty of the children of responsible, loving, quality parents have chosen a path that led to tragedy through no fault of their parents. Many if not most parents of adult children have felt at least the anxiety if not the sting that prompted King David’s cry, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!” (2 Samuel 18:33)

Sometimes that cry is evoked, not by a bad decision by the adult child but by events totally out of everyone’s control: illness, accident, loss of job, break up of marriage, even becoming a crime victim. To be a parent is to embrace a risk that never stops. To be a parent may be the greatest incentive to live by faith we could ever imagine. Regardless of how well we did raising our children, our control over what happens to them is an illusion that diminishes as they grow up and vanishes at they emerge from adolescence into adulthood. To paraphrase Psalm 31:5, the prayer of parents of adult children is, “Heavenly Father, into your hands I commit my child.”

Don’t Change My Plans!

Date Published: 07/19/2009

In 2 Samuel 7:6-7 God responds to King David’s desire to build a Temple for God by protesting that since the Israelites came up out of Egypt, God has moved about in a tent. God seems unwilling to be confined and tied down to a permanent Temple. The metaphor of the portable Tabernacle fits with how I have tried to “live in tents,” following the metaphor of Abraham in Hebrews 11:9-10.

Now, this week, the convergence of economics and auto mechanics has dramatically altered our plans for vacationing around representing Central Christian Church at the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Indianapolis, Indiana. The realities that compelled us to make these changes seemed to be a word from God. Yet, I know I felt disappointed and hurt. My wife, Candy, probably even more so.

So, I am finding the flexibility of following God and “living in tents” by having our plans changed to be more challenging to practical living, to emotions, to our communication as a couple, to my faith, than I might have suggested when I wrote the into copy for this blog. I think I am hearing God say to me, “Don’t get too attached to the way you want things to be. Keep following me on this unpredictable adventure.”

When your plans change, what do you hear God saying?

Embracing Risky Adventure

Date Published: 05/08/2009

With a bit of tongue in cheek, I have said that my academic achievement son Jon is the kid I tried to be and couldn’t and my dare devil son David is the kid I wanted to be and didn’t dare. As Erik has progressed into adulthood, I have more and more recognized him as the “son of my old age” (see Genesis 21:2,7; 37:3; 44:20). Besides recognizing their distinct temperaments and the unique relationship I have with each of my sons, I also celebrate the way they have embraced life’s adventures.

I have also watched my parents (and now my mother alone) embrace each new phase of life with zest, hope and faith. I always sensed that they were delighted to see what having teenagers was going to be like, what sending my sister and I off to college would be like, what becoming in-laws and then grandparents would be like, what retirement would be like, what assisted living would be like. After a time of grieving and adjustment after my father’s death, my mother now expresses contentment with her life in nursing care and even speaks with anticipation about being ready to see what God has in store as she leaves this life.

My experience is that way too many people err on the side of caution rather than adventure. The temptation to be like John Marcher in Henry James’ novel The Beast in the Jungle is relentless for some folk. He has a foreboding that an unknown “beast in the jungle” will ruin his life. He lives with utmost caution, alert to avoid every threat and risk. In the end, he discovers that his fear and caution was the “beast” that ruined his life.

When the future seems unclear and ominous, playing it safe is very tempting but is almost certainly the most reliable way to insure disaster. Of course, embracing adventure does not insure “success” and certainly doesn’t eliminate risk, but it makes living satisfying, and along the way inspires others as well. I am not suggesting foolish gambles or reckless escapades, but only when we are beyond ourselves are we living by faith (Genesis 15:6; Habakkuk 2:4).

A faltering global economy, a H1N1 virus flu pandemic, an aging congregation seeking transformation. Caution and fear are not options for those who want to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Being warned that death awaited him in Jerusalem, Jesus did not flinch or hesitate to finish his work (Luke 13:31-35).

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Date Published: 08/31/2010

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth's preliminary injunction prohibiting the National Institutes of Health from funding the research in which human embryos are destroyed brought this longstanding debate to public attention. While his ruling seems to rest on following the intent of Congress, the issues raised by partisans on all sides of the question are not so much about how to interpret the law passed by Congress or about the relative power of the legislative and executive branches of government. While there are many layers of complex issues, much of the discussion seems to be cast as religion versus science. One of the ironies is that Dr. Francis S. Collins, who was appointed by President Obama as Director of the National Institutes of Health, is a self-identified evangelical Christian who supported the NIH embryonic stem cell research.

I have neither interest nor information for evaluating Dr. Collins’ faith. I know that some have questioned his evangelical credentials because of his acceptance of embryonic stem cell research and his rejection of creationism and intelligent design. I must say that I don’t see why that should negate his faith. I am certainly not qualified to probe the intricacies of the science, and maybe not even the theology, involved in this debate. But I do want to raise two ethical questions, without having come to a conclusion about the answers myself.

My first question is: Is destroying a human embryo for research any more or less ethical than keeping it frozen indefinitely or discarding it once the couple who produced it no long needs or wants it? I know some groups have made it their cause to find women who will “adopt” these embryos by having them implanted and bringing them to term, but that seems a hugely impractical solution for the hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos that are already in storage. I know legal debates rage about the rights of ownership and control of these frozen embryos. While I suppose some women might donate eggs and men donate sperm for the purpose of creating embryos for research, what I have read and heard, however, is that the main source of embryonic stem cells is the “excess” embryos from in vitro fertilization performed so couples can have children. We know that in the natural processes, some percentage of embryos do not implant and are lost, often without the woman even being aware of it. Are those embryos morally equivalent to the “excess” embryos of a fertility clinic? Is the ethical debate about embryonic stem cell research being waged at the wrong point in the process? If the ethical problem is producing an embryo that will not be brought to term as a child, does not that put the focus of the debate in the fertility clinic rather than the NIH?

My second question concerns a broader ethical issue. What costs, risks and even moral hazards are legitimate in the pursuit of a worthwhile end? To cast this in terms of this specific debate, does the good of helping a couple have a child justify producing embryos that will not be used? Or does the good of healing some grievous injuries and diseases justify destroying “excess” embryos that would otherwise be discarded? Can one of these questions be answered “yes” and the other “no?” On what basis? These questions raise age old ends-and-means and slippery-slope arguments. How does a secular, pluralistic society make these judgments when religion (not to mention different religions) and science seem to give different answers?

“Enjoy Life – This Is Not A Dress Rehearsal.”

Date Published: 04/06/2009

“Enjoy life – This is not a dress rehearsal.”

I saw this on a bumper sticker a few weeks ago, when I was collecting material for my worship message for Easter Sunday. Both the design of the bumper sticker and its companions on the back of the car in front of me made clear that it was a challenge to those who believe in life after life. As one who believes firmly in the resurrection of the body as the Gospels attest, as the Apostle Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 and as is expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, I suppose I could have taken offense.

However, as one who is totally invested in the radical hope of the resurrection to eternal life, I am offended at sappy drivel about becoming angels, floating on clouds, plucking harps, silly conversations with St. Peter at heaven’s gate, and becoming disembodied spirits. I’m even more offended by the history of Christians in positions of power using the promise of pie-in-the-sky heaven as a tool for oppressing the weak and the poor here and now (it’s probably not just in past history either). So even though I don’t agree with the theology intended in the bumper sticker, I resonate with a good deal of its sentiment.

Even though the bumper sticker won’t make it into my Easter Sunday worship message, in a way it could. In that message I hope to guide the congregation to contemplate Jesus’ breakfast on the beach with seven of his disciples in John 21:1-14 and see how just when we least expect him, the risen Jesus shows up in the present moment to transform our daily routine into a holy encounter. So the hope of the resurrection to eternal life and the reality of the resurrection of Jesus are not just about some far off eternal future or about what happens to us when we die. Resurrection is the way to enjoy living today – no rehearsing for tomorrow.

First Day of School Every Sunday

Date Published: 09/07/2009

Thanks to the magic of the internet (email, blog and Face Book), from Texas I get a bit of the experience of first day back to school for my grandchildren: Hannah 6th grade (middle school) and Isaac 4th grade in Pennsylvania; Sam 2nd grade in Wisconsin. Daughter-in-law Rachel muses about being old enough to have a 2nd grader while looking forward to being able to focus on 2 ½ year old Elizabeth while Sam is in school. Isaac was so excited he could hardly sleep before the first day of school.

Though distant for me, I do remember that excitement of the first day of school. Seeing friends. Anticipating new adventures. Hope to perform a little better than last year. The joy of a fresh start. At a somewhat diminished level, I had those kinds of feelings with the start of every new semester in college and grad school. In the church, fall program season, Advent and Christmas, Lent and Easter still give me a tingle. In fact, I often feel this kind of excitement with the opening hymn of each Sunday’s worship, and the adrenaline rush of stepping up to speak the first words of the worship message.

As I enjoyed a long distance sample of my grandchildren’s excitement about the new school year, I thought about the excitement of the worship planning team that met last week and wondered and prayed for that excitement, that thrill, that anticipation to be there for the whole congregation as they assemble on Sunday morning, for every congregation as they gather in the presence of God for worship.

God Specializes in Resurrections

Date Published: 04/05/2009

God specializes in resurrections. Through Moses, God brought the Hebrews out of seemingly hopeless slavery in Egypt. Under King David, God united a hopelessly divided Israel. With the teamwork of Ezra and Nehemiah, God returned Judah from hopeless exile in Babylon. Jesus returned to life Jairus’ daughter, the son of the widow of Nain, and even the four-day decayed Lazarus. When John the Baptizer’s disciples asked Jesus if he was “the one” or if they should look for another, one of the signs of the dawning of the Messianic age Jesus told them to report was that the dead are raised. (Matthew 11:4)

Easter Sunday we will celebrate the climax to which all of these resurrections point, the resurrection of Jesus. In that celebration we also affirm our hope of sharing in the ultimate resurrection to eternal life of all of God’s people of faith. (Philippians 3:10-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:14).

Central Christian Church has had at least two resurrections as a congregation. When the congregation was deeply in debt having just built the downtown facility, the financial panic of 1891 threatened the loss of the building and the existence of the congregation. Through the vision and determination of Pastor M.M. Davis, God brought Central Christian Church into a generation of global effectiveness from downtown Dallas. After World War II, Central Christian Church faded with the era of downtown churches. Through the vision of Ralph Shank and others and the pastoral leadership of E.C. Rowand Jr., God brought Central Christian Church to a generation of thriving in our current location. Now, in the 21st Century, in the midst of another economic crisis and dramatically changing culture, it is time to believe God for another resurrection for Central Christian Church. This Easter we watch for Jesus to show up and transform our daily routines into holy encounters.

God’s Reputation on the Line

Date Published: 06/21/2009

When does my success or failure put God’s reputation on the line? Obviously this takes a challenge greater than what I could accomplish myself. The outcome must also point to God and not to me. I must also trust that God not only can but will work.

When young David goes up against Goliath, he sounds brash and presumptuous. “Let no one’s heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.” (1 Samuel 17:32) But a close reading of the text suggests that he was not cocky but totally confident in God. David is offended that the Philistine warrior defies the God of Israel. (vv. 36, 45) At the beginning of the story, David seems to reject Saul’s armor because it is just too clumsy for him. (v. 39) But when he faces Goliath, he wants everyone to “know that the LORD does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s.” (v. 47)

Depending on the wrong things for security is all too easy. Nations depend on military power. Companies depend management strategies. Churches depend on pastors and leaders. Individuals depend on wealth or intelligence. All faulty and fragile! History and the Bible agree.

Halloween Horrors

Date Published: 10/27/2009

In 35 years of ministry in 4 congregations I have navigated through a variety of approaches and responses of Christians to Halloween. I’d have to say I grew up treating Halloween as a harmless, fun fantasy day for children. The masquerade of evil and death was not taken seriously. Everybody knew it was pretend. But along the way people in the churches I have served have ranged from “this is a dangerous, evil opening to the occult so we don’t even acknowledge Halloween” to “trick-or-treating is dangerous and we don’t trust our neighbors so we offer a safe alternative at church” from “the church can have a costume party for youth but give it a safe theme such as dress up as your favorite Bible character” to “Halloween is a chance to teach about the hope of resurrection so people are not afraid of death.” But none of these congregations tried scare-‘em-out-of-hell haunted house evangelism. I did, however, hear a lot of complaining that Christians who tried to give a cautionary spin to Halloween were killjoys who should just give it up.

My Wisconsin grandchildren are trick-or-treating this year as R2D2 and a pink panda. I haven’t heard from my Pennsylvania grandchildren yet. From grandparently distance in another part of the country, it seems that my grandchildren are getting more-or-less the harmless fun approach I grew up with. As I see the elaborate displays and parties done by some families and in some neighborhoods (and the stretch some churches make to do an alternative), I have found myself musing about my current feelings about Halloween.

Over my years of pastoral ministry I have come to recognize the reality of evil and the damage it does. I’m sure some folk use Halloween as an excuse for some level of evil from destructive mischief to pursuing occult power. Maybe making fun of evil in its most grotesque forms disarms it as well or better than direct confrontation. Might this even be an affirmation of confidence that the forces of evil are no match for Jesus?

I have accompanied many people to the last days of this life and have conducted many funerals. I have witnessed the dramatic differences in the ways people respond to death. I am not so naïve as to suggest that all people of faith die calmly and those without faith die in dread. However, I do know that the Christian hope of resurrection to eternal life is a powerful antidote to fear. A lot of the fear provoking features of horror movies and haunted houses are based on faulty understandings of what happens when people die: ghosts, zombies, vampires, and even angels. Can caricatures of these things expose their unreality in a way that affirms the hope of the resurrection to eternal life?

I’m not at all sure I know the answers to these questions. I expect some of you may react to what I have written with “you’re playing with fire” and others may respond “don’t be so serious.” My purpose is not resolution but to stimulate conversation. If you have thoughts about Halloween, I invite you to reply to this blog. Pass it on to others who might be interested in putting in their two cents. We might all learn something.

Happy Holidays – Season’s Greetings

Date Published: 12/20/2009

I’m sure you have encountered Christians reacting with hostility to “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings.” As Christians, we do want to affirm that Christmas is really about celebrating the birth of Jesus, but I’m wondering if we are doing more harm than good by making this into a strident crusade. Todd and I had some conversation about this, so I decided to share some of my thoughts with you.

Maybe it was my west coast upbringing with large Jewish and Buddhist populations in my neighborhood, but “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings” were very common in my 1950s growing up world. I didn't think of it so much as wanting not to offend non-Christians or some other coerced political correctness but as the non-Christians I knew wanting to wish me (and others) well in the spirit of the season. They wanted to participate even when they didn’t feel comfortable with an overtly religious message because they were not religious, or not Christian.

I have always recognized that the shopping season had nothing to do with Jesus, only with commerce. So for merchants to use “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings” to sell their stuff makes more sense to me than using Jesus to sell their stuff. In fact, using Jesus to sell stuff seems to me to come close to blasphemous. Luke 19:45-46 reports that Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there; and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.”

Actually I have more quarrel with the “true spirit of the season,” “the spirit of giving” etc. than I do with “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings.” Those things (that also go back to at least "Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus") strike me as doing much more to undermine the distinctive message of the birth of Christ than the generic good wishes of unbelievers. For a good take on “the real meaning of Christmas” go to Linus' answer to Charlie Brown (which was just on TV).

However, my sense is that the “Happy Holidays” and “Seasons Greetings” people are wishing me well and not making a political statement. I want to accept those good wishes, whatever words are used, whatever they think about Jesus. Conversely, it strikes me that it is obnoxious Christians who are turning the CHRISTmas thing into a social-political campaign that adds offense by its vociferousness.

As I read what I have written, I am feeling that all of this controversy (including my written reaction here) can really rob us of the joy of anticipating and celebrating the birth of Jesus. I want to keep my focus on Jesus. If I have irritated you, I’m sorry, my real intent is to liberate us from fighting for causes so we can enjoy welcoming Jesus.

Health Care Reform and Psalm 146

Date Published: 08/18/2009

One of the pivotal issues in the discussion of health care reform is the appropriate role for government to play. I certainly not going to suggest I know what Congress should do, but a couple of lines in Psalm 146 suggest themes that permeate Scripture seem to me to stimulate the kind of thinking people of faith need to wrestle with.

Verse 3 says, “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.” On the one hand, we need to recognize that the government (whether an ancient monarchy or a contemporary democracy) is not God and cannot meet our most important needs. Expecting that any government (or business) could come up with a solution to all health problems is unrealistic. Conversely, fear of government (or business) spawned catastrophe exposes a lack of faith in God.

Verses 7-9 speak of God as one “who executes justice for the oppressed; who gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets the prisoners free; the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD watches over the strangers; he upholds the orphan and the widow.” Scripture consistently speaks of God’s special concern for the poor, the weak, the outcast and repeatedly instructs godly rulers to reflect God’s heart by promoting justice and compassion for these folk. (See Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

I think these themes suggest two questions to ponder as we seek and pray for God’s hand in our current national discussion. By meditating on the space between these we can encounter the heart of God.

1. How do we keep from overplaying the role of government (good and bad) in our own lives, the lives of our neighbors, and the well being of the people of our country?
2. How do we encourage our society (not just government) to care and insure justice for the weakest and most vulnerable among us?

How To Decide When You Have The Right To Choose

Date Published: 05/23/2009

When President Barack Obama delivered the commencement address at Notre Dame University, not only did it put the abortion controversy in the center of public attention again, but his speech, which he seems to have intended to calm the waters, did not satisfy the activists on either side of the issue. Besides the debate over what should be public policy on abortion, this also raised questions about the role of religious, moral and personal principles in a democratic political arena. Should the majority’s values always prevail? Do any fundamental principles inform the rule of law regardless of popular opinion? When there are irreconcilable disagreements, can people find a way to seek some common ground or find a way to discuss the ambiguities and complexities that come with real, personal experiences?

In thirty-four years of ordained ministry, I have been confronted with the issues around abortion on a personal level much more often than in the arena of public policy. When people (women, girls, couples, teens, parents) come to me at the time of an unwelcome or problematic pregnancy, they never ask, “What do I/we have the right to do legally?” They don’t often even ask, “What is morally right or what is God’s will?” Rather, they ask me to help guide them through the most excruciating decision making process of their lives. To say either, “You have the right to choose,” or “Abortion is a mortal sin,” is an unhelpful cop out.

While I strongly believe in and encourage prayer and drawing on the Bible, taking a “Have you prayed about this?” or “What would Jesus do?” or unloading proof-text Bible verses is counterproductive and harmful. Instead, I try to help people explore the tensions and conflicts in their inner principles and emotions. I try to help them find a solid spiritual core that can sustain them as they deal with the turmoil and uncertainty that comes regardless of how they decide. I try to help them make a decision they can live with in light of their relationship with God.

When people are facing such traumatic decisions, they are often afraid that whatever they decide will be wrong or impossible to live with. Sometimes they say they will “do whatever the pastor says” to avoid having to make their own decision, which also means the pastor get blamed when it gets difficult later. I try to respond to these fears by encouraging faith. I will ask, “What can you decide, trusting God for whatever comes afterward?” Rather than a rule based moral code, I encourage building on what Paul wrote in Romans 14:23, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Conversely, “Faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Romans 4:5; see also Genesis 15:6; Psalm 106:31; Romans 4; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23)

As such a conversation unfolds, I may ask questions like these. “Can you trust God to give you the strength and wisdom to love a child with Down Syndrome?” “Can you trust God for the mercy of forgiveness and restoration to deal with the regrets after an abortion?” “Can you trust God to give you the grace and freedom to place this child for adoption?” I try not to use such questions manipulatively but to strengthen people’s faith in God for all circumstances and to trust the Holy Spirit to guide people who sincerely want to make their decisions based on their Christian faith.

Of course, not everyone asks with that sincere desire. Some want the pastor’s blessing for what they’ve already decided. Some want the pastor to tell them something they can reject to express their anger either in their situation or a deeper animosity toward God or the Church. Some make no pretense of faith and may come to a pastor to placate a parent or to get financial assistance. In such cases, stating a position is really a waste of effort anyway.

None of this is to say I don’t have convictions that I intend to be based on a biblical ethic. Discussing those principles and the nuances of how to “choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19) is appropriate and instructive in a classroom or discussion group but quite different than the messy, emotion charged context of helping people make what may be the most traumatic, life altering decision they will ever face. Within the Church, I wish I could shift the conversations about abortion from public policy to helping people decide how to choose from a core of faith.