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.

How to Disagree with Fellow Christians

Date Published: 05/07/2010

I know that Christian people disagree about some of the volatile issues that are polarizing our society right now. Though they get portrayed as “for or against” in the political arena, for most of us there are lots of complexities, subtleties and nuances. Some of the current volatile issues are:

immigration reform
health care reform
banking reform
same sex marriage
right to life and reproductive rights
environmental and energy policy

If Christians are going to love each other so extravagantly that everyone knows we are Jesus’ disciples, we must face some pointed questions.

1. Can we submit our presuppositions to Jesus instead of remolding Jesus to fit our presuppositions?
2. Can we dialog about our differences with an attitude of “I want to learn from you” instead of “I want to convince you”?
3. Even though our disagreements are over important issues that do really make a difference, can we acknowledge that they are secondary to our oneness in Jesus?
4. Can we love the people with whom we disagree the way Jesus has loved us?

The Imam And The Pastor

Date Published: 02/09/2010

Recently I had a fascinating conversation with a Muslim Imam. He commented on the cultural diversity of his immigrant congregation. He came from Turkey and observed that the Muslim community here includes people from Pakistan and Palestine, Indonesia and the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Iran. Though they share a common faith, they do not understand their diverse cultures and how those cultures influence the ways they practice that faith. By way of contrast, he said that they perceive Christianity and the culture of the United States as continuous, homogeneous and inseparable. As an Imam, he described his task as teaching the people of his congregation how to find their identity in their shared faith rather than in their various cultures, and how to live their faith in yet a different culture that doesn’t understand Islam very well. He is concerned to teach the next generation who are born here how to be Muslims in the United States and not lose their faith in a culture different than that of their parents.

I said that my task as a pastor was not too different. I have to teach people to find their identity in Jesus and to see that being a Christian and being an American are different. I would hope that most of the time people could be both good Christians and good Americans, just as he wants his people to be both good Muslims and good Americans. But when faith and culture inevitably come into conflict, I hope to have taught people that following Jesus always takes priority. And like the Imam, as a pastor I am trying to teach the people of my congregation how to live their faith in a culture that really doesn’t know or understand Jesus, the Bible or Christianity very well – all too often what people think they know is incomplete, badly distorted and just plain wrong. As a pastor I, too, am concerned to teach the next generation how to trust and follow Jesus in an increasingly secular, pluralistic United States that has lost it veneer of generic, cultural Christianity.

In Pursuit of Security

Date Published: 10/15/2009

I have detected an almost desperate craving for security in the responses to some of the recent discussion of current events: the arrest of would-be terrorists, the consideration of the way forward in Afghanistan and the debate on health care reform. The recurrent question is “Are we safe? Are we secure?” I expect those questions may arise from other issues as well.

One of the unsettling realities of the flurry of recent terrorist arrests is that very destructive acts can be carried out by a very small group or even a single individual. International diplomatic trends, troop and heavy equipment movements and even clandestine “chatter” that might be more easily detected are not necessary. I am highly impressed by what I have seen of the work of the FBI in these cases. But the reality remains that they may stop a dozen or a hundred or a thousand or more attempted terrorist attacks and still miss one, not by incompetence or by bad policy, strategy or tactics, but just because one was able to keep a low enough profile to get through.

Figuring out the way forward in Afghanistan traces back to the al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001. From the standpoint of security for the United States, preventing Afghanistan from becoming a base of operations for future attacks is the objective. But in the nine years that have passed, concern for the viability of the nation and wellbeing of the people of Afghanistan greatly complicates the picture. That al Qaeda and similar groups are not national entities or states, they can move from place to place and be very decentralized, so that disabling them is something like the carnival game of smacking the gopher with a hammer when he pops his head through the hole. Get a hit one place, and it just pops up another. Controlling all of the remote places with weak governments where terrorist cells could operate is unfeasible. In the current debate, the question comes down to: does an anti-terrorist or an anti-insurgent strategy in Afghanistan make the United States more secure?

Those things may seem distant from the health care reform debate. However, when the press moves away from the political jockeying and posturing in and in reaction to Washington, the polls, interviews and grassroots responses to the debate seem to revolve around security. Will I lose my present health care? Will I be able to get health care? Will a bureaucracy (either government or insurance) make decisions for me that affect not only my health but perhaps even life and death? Will I be able to choose my medicine, treatment, doctor or hospital? If I get sick, will I be able to get the care I need and want? Even if I am not totally happy with the way things are now, the unknown of what might happen if things change makes me feel insecure.

Feeding these feelings of insecurity is the magnitude of corporate failures in the current economy. Prudential Insurance has used the image of the Rock of Gibraltar for their logo for years. We have extrapolated that kind of imagery to many institutions that we count on. When so many that we thought of as “rock solid” crumble, we feel understandably insecure.

I have no intention of adding to anxiety. I don’t want my observations to feed a frenzy of playing “ain’t it awful.” I’m not suggesting that the FBI, NATO or even Congress are not important or doing a good job, only that no human pursuit of security is foolproof. Nor am I suggesting that trusting God makes one immune from national or personal disaster. Rather, I am suggesting that we can live with confidence even in the face of great insecurity when we do not have unrealistic expectations about human endeavors but depend totally on God. To expect security from our human institutions is idolatry.

These Psalm excerpts point us in the right direction.

Psalm 33:16-17 NRSV
A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save.

Psalm 146:3, 5, 7-9 NRSV
Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. … Happy are those whose … hope is in the Lord their God, … 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.

Psalm 115:4-8 NRSV
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; they make no sound in their throats. Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.

Inoculated for Protection from Faith

Date Published: 06/29/2009

I remember the consternation among the adults in the Baptist church in which I grew up when John Kennedy was running for president in 1960. I was in junior high and just old enough to be aware that they thought a Roman Catholic President would be unwelcome if not dangerous. As the campaign unfolded, John Kennedy assured the electorate that his religion would not affect how he governed the country. His American values would supersede his Catholic values. I’m sure some Catholic leaders at the time wondered if Catholic values influenced his private life either.

One sign of the cultural shift in the United States in the past 50 years is how many Baptists and Catholics now see each other as allies rather than rivals in the public arena. If anyone in 1960 would have predicted that five Roman Catholics would be seated on the Supreme Court and a sixth nominated in 2009, they would not have been taken seriously.

The Christian Century (June 30, 2009, p. 17) reported that some of Sonia Sotomayor’s friends have said “she does not belong to a parish and is not a frequent churchgoer.” The New York Times (May 31) wrote she “may be what religious scholars call a ‘cultural Catholic,’ … as are many U.S. Catholics who are raised in the faith and influenced by its values but not active in church.” Perhaps that description whole have somewhat assured the people in my Baptist home church in 1960, but today it would probably be a source of doubt and anxiety. They’d feel a lot closer kinship with a practicing Catholic.

I have no intention in commenting on Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Rather, I am struck by the phrase: “raised in the faith and influenced by its values but not active in church.” This strikes me as another description of the secular people that I wrote about in my previous post. Especially in an area like Dallas, with its plethora of churches, a lot of people were inoculated as children by the church in a way that protected them from authentic, adult faith. They might even enjoy dipping into church for some special occasions as a kind of cultural artifact, evoking nostalgia or comfort, but life does not flow from faith.

In my 34 years of ordained ministry, I have been increasingly concerned about people who are fairly active church members but treat their faith and the church as one of several avocations rather than the center around which all of life revolves. Church activities are cultural artifacts that reinforce rather than challenge complacency.

There are not only cultural Catholics, there are also cultural Baptist, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and yes, even cultural Disciples of Christ. But few people younger than 50 regard these identifies as particularly significant. If they are active in a congregation, they do so because it fits them more than that they were born into it. Secular people may still describe themselves as Baptists (or whatever denominational tradition in which they were inoculated as children) even though they have little if any involvement with a community of faith or even with God.

To think of evangelism and church growth as equivalent or interchangeable may only reinforce diluted cultural religion. What is needed is an invitation to center life around an intimate faith relationship with Jesus and a community of people who share that identity.

Is Jesus Around The Corner In The Iranian Protests?

Date Published: 07/13/2009

On July 2, 2009 I heard Terry Gross interview Roya Hakakian on National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air.” Roya Hakakian who was a twelve year old in Iran during the 1978-79 Iranian revolution. She left Iran with her family for the United States when she was eighteen. In the interview Roya Hakakian talked about how the current Iranian protestors are drawing on some of the same symbols that fueled the 1978-79 revolution. But she noted one significant difference. She said that leading voices among today’s Iranian protestors are advocating non-violence.

In the history of Islam, Mohammed leads his followers into war with their enemies. Without implying anything other than this historical observation, it seems to me that Muslims who want to find a non-violent way to address social change and justice will have to look beyond Mohammed. Roya Hakakian spoke about the influence of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. but made no mention of Jesus. While I think that is quite understandable, I cannot help but wonder if a serious pursuit of non-violence will not inevitably have to confront Jesus.

Let me quickly add that I am all too aware that since the time of Constantine Christians have created theological justifications for war and even wanton violence. But I believe it is also clear that Christians have had to look beyond Jesus to construct such ethics.

Is Marriage Obsolete?

Date Published: 11/18/2010

An Associated Press item that was in the Dallas Morning News today (p. 7A), and is circulating on the internet and undoubtedly appearing in other newspapers, suggests that marriage is becoming obsolete because a record high of 39% of children in the U.S. are growing up in homes with unmarried parents (most divorced or never married, a few surely widowed). The copy is written in such a way as to suggest that because that percentage has been growing, this is the norm. However, what it does not say is the obvious math, 71% of children in the U.S. are growing up in homes with married parents. Seems, that’s still pretty normal. If you keep reading to the end of the article, it also says that 46% of unmarried adults want to get married, and of those living with a partner 64% want to get married. The same Pew study also says that 67% of Americans are upbeat about the future of marriage.

I am posting this, not to blast the media for distorting the news, nor to promote handwringing over the growing proportion of the unmarried population, nor even to opine about marriage alternatives or toot the horn for traditional families (tongue in cheek – like Jacob and Rachel and Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah, Genesis 30:1-24). Rather, I hope it is an antidote for playing “Ain’t It Awful” (with apologies to Eric Berne) with rather fluid social trends. The alternative to fear mongering about what happens around us is to live our own lives and relationships with integrity as disciples of Jesus.

It Could Happen To Me

Date Published: 07/08/2009

Deciding which party to vote for is impossible based on a tally of the extra-marital affairs of prominent politicians. When liberal politicians like Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards are caught, we hear conservatives complain about lack of moral foundation. When conservative politicians like John Ensign and Mark Sanford get caught we hear liberals complain about hypocrisy. Of course, as we see with Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy, the United States does not have a monopoly on philandering politicians.

Politicians are not the only ones who cheat on their spouses. I have had more than enough personal experience with clergy colleagues whose ministries and marriages have been destroyed by infidelity, some of them close personal friends.

In my blog entry of June 24, “No Fault Ministry,” I noted that the Apostle Paul expressed concern that after proclaiming to others he himself should not be disqualified. (1 Corinthians 9:27). In his press conference confession, Mark Sanford said that the relationship with his mistress started innocently enough as a friendship, and he observed that he supposed that’s the way these things often start.

To me, all of this suggests that the greatest risk is thinking I am safe, and the greatest security is the vigilance that comes with acknowledging vulnerability. As the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:12, “If you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.”

Jury Duty Essential

Date Published: 08/14/2009

On August 11 our son Erik received his first jury duty summons since graduating from college. My wife Candy and I have both been summoned several times but have never served on a jury. Almost every one considers a call to jury duty an annoying interruption to what they had planned. The prevailing mood in the jury pool room is “how soon can I get out of here?”

This same week Aung San Suu Kyi, 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the Burma Democracy Movement was convicted of violating the terms of her house arrest and has her sentence extended by 18 more months. In 1990 she led the National League for Democracy to a decisive electoral victory. Her detention is basically for threatening the military dictatorship of Burma (Myanmar). That prearranged trial, verdict and sentence emphasized the importance of independent courts and citizen participation on juries that we enjoy.

The hassle of jury duty and the disruption it brings to our routines is a small price to pay to protect from the politically manipulated miscarriages of justice such as we saw in Burma. I’m not suggesting that courts and juries always get it right or that there are not some systemic injustices in the U. S. judicial system. Rather, I am suggesting that rather than look at civic participation, such as jury duty, ought not to be viewed as a nuisance or disruption but as a welcome protection.

I you have been reading my posts to “Living in Tents,” you know that my concern is with Jesus Christ, not with promoting western democracy. You also know that I think that the secular drift of the western democracies, including the United States, might actually be healthy for the faith of serious disciples of Jesus. In an increasingly secular society where committed Christians are a shrinking and even maligned minority, democratic institutions, such as and independent judiciary and jury trials, are ever more valuable protections for unpopular expressions of faith.

Besides the atmosphere of annoyance that seems to pervade jury pool rooms, I hear a lot of cynicism about the courts today: too easy on criminals, too activist, too much under the influence of power and wealth, too slow to respond. My point, however, is not to defend the courts or deny the reality of problems. Rather, I want to suggest that where those who truly want to follow Jesus are involved – as jurors, judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants – they bring to bear some values and principles essential to the court that have nothing to do with promoting our particular “religion.”

Justice and truth are at the top of the list. The concern for those who have been wounded (“Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.” Psalm 71:1-2) and integrity (Jesus said, “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12).

There was much discussion about empathy and compassion around the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. While a Bible verse cannot be a proof text for a particular judicial philosophy, and I am not commenting on that debate, those who have received the grace of Jesus will also bring mercy into the legal arena. This is mercy for both victims and perpetrators, recognizing the image of God and the brokenness of humanity in all people. (“What does the LORD require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:8 NIV) Throughout Scripture, justice and mercy are intrinsically inseparable.

As disciples of Jesus, we cannot effectively bring justice, truth and mercy into the judicial system if we view our participation as a nuisance or routine or even a duty. Instead, we need to recognize that we are there by divine appointment. We are these as agents of Jesus Christ, though not at that point to preach and certainly not to impose personal morality, but to radiate light in darkness.

Labor Day Reflections

Date Published: 09/09/2009

For years I have listened to the jokes about not working on Labor Day. The church’s office is closed for the holiday, so I am not at work today, but the rest of this week will take extra effort to make up for the relaxation I’m enjoying today. I did a little work around the house (fixing a condensate drain in a window AC and taking care of family finances) and hope to have some time for relaxed reading.

Though I had never checked out the details, I have long been certain that Labor Day was not about celebrating the value of work per se by taking a day off from work, but that Labor Day was a celebration of the contributions of organized labor – labor unions – to the history and culture of the United States. As the picnic I was part of on the Sunday before Labor Day, one conversation turned to speculating about the origins of Labor Day. We guessed that it might have been instituted in the time of Franklin Roosevelt when unions rose to prominence.

I did a little sleuthing on the internet today and found that Labor Day truly was founded to celebrate labor unions, but quite a bit earlier than Franklin Roosevelt. Apparently a number of unions, cities and states had some form of Labor Day celebration before it was formally adopted by Congress. Unions paraded through the streets of cities as a demonstration of their size and importance. Grover Cleveland was president in 1894 when Congress officially made Labor Day a federal holiday. Though the historical impetus is not completely clear, what is evident is that there had been several violent clashes with labor unions, perhaps culminating with the Pullman Palace Railway Car strike, and establishing the holiday may have been a political maneuver to pacify the unions.

Like most of our holidays, the reason for their existence quickly is lost in the push to enjoy leisure time and recreation. Though my father belonged to the Teamsters in the heyday of Jimmy Hoffa (he was an embalmer and they were organized with the chauffers local along with the taxi drivers, since they all drove cars as part of the job), I don’t remember making any special acknowledgement of that on Labor Day. Though labor unions seem to be in the decline at the beginning of the 21st century, I don’t imagine anyone suggesting that we drop Labor Day as a holiday. The owners and managers of union and non-union shops alike enjoy the day off.

I’m not going to stretch or do some mental gymnastics to make a spiritual or religious connection with these observations. That we don’t think of unions much on Labor Day is just another reminder of how hard it is to sustain a passionate focus for a long period of time, especially from one generation to the next. Even something as powerful and precious as faith must be renewed daily if it is to remain fresh.

Leadership in Charitable Giving

Date Published: 09/02/2009

As we head toward what may be one of the most robust (or rough) Republican primary races for Governor of Texas in a very long time, I was intrigued but not surprised by the low level of charitable giving on both the Hutchison and Perry tax returns: Hutchison at less than 1% and Perry at the national average 3%. I know many factors come into play in deciding how to vote, so I am not implying any political preference or personal critique of these two. I also know that Democratic office holders don’t do any better at charitable giving than Republicans (though I have no idea if anyone has ever done a comparison). I also know that tax returns don’t tell the whole story. Some folk don’t report their full giving in keeping with Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:3 about not letting left hand know what the right hand is doing.

So with all those disclaimers, I do want to sound my little voice for leadership in charitable giving by those who are in positions of public leadership in government, in business, in the community and most of all in the church. Maybe we would be spared political debates and the anxiety about the federal deficit about health care reform, welfare reform, aid to families with children and the elderly and a host of other things if giving 10% (a biblical tithe) to charitable causes enabled full funding for voluntary agencies and organizations that address these needs out of a sense of compassion and calling, joy and hope. All those who argue that they don’t want the government to tax them to do something they say should be done voluntarily should be very generous in their voluntary gifts.

So far my input has nothing to do with religion, even if many of the voluntary agencies were operated by religious folk. Many “faith based” organizations are genuinely inter-faith. What kind of transformation of society might we envision of the leaders in government, in business, in the community and religion led in establishing a tithe (10%) of charitable giving as the expected norm for upstanding, responsible citizens? Even atheists could go for that!

I will acknowledge that this does have a religious and specifically Christian dimension. Of course, for people active in Christian congregations, much if not all of that tithe would go to their congregations. I expect that almost any congregation with a tithing membership will have more than enough money for all of the mission to which God calls them. I would include the congregation I currently serve that is presently struggling financially. If all of our members gave 10% of their income, we’d have no money problems (except maybe deciding on new ministries we could launch). While I’m sure that much of such giving would go to support the programs that benefit the current members, I firmly believe there would be plenty to benefit the local, national and global community as well.

Perhaps the greater spiritual benefit for a tithing population is bringing an attitude of caring for others beyond myself, my family, my friends, my congregation, my neighbors. Such an attitude would surely benefit any community both in terms of its intrinsic health and in terms of its purpose of mission in the larger world. Yes, that does have a secular benefit, but I believe it is at the core of a social ethic that springs from the teaching of Jesus, the practice of the pre-Constantinian Church, the word of the Hebrew prophets and the foundation of the Mosaic Law.

Lehman Brothers and The Guiding Light

Date Published: 09/15/2009

What do the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the last episode of The Guiding Light have in common? The Lehman Brothers was founded in 1859. The Guiding Light (“the” was dropped in 1975) started on radio in 1937 and on television in 1952. They became such established fixtures of culture in the United States that imagining life without them became unthinkable. But they are gone (Guiding Light’s last episode: Friday, September 18, 2009).

When established institutions come to the end of their time, we are reminded that what seems permanent to us is truly transitory. Rome thought of itself as eternal. Nazi Germany called itself the “Thousand Year Reich.” The British Empire proclaimed that the sun never set on British soil. But Isaiah 40:8 tells a greater truth: “The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever.” (cf. 1 Peter 1:23)

I have never been one to compare the United States to Rome or any other past empire and wring my hands over the impending doom implicit in some growing decadence. But I do know the time will come when everything that seems so familiar and comfortable and established to us will go the way of Lehman Brothers and The Guiding Light. I say that, not with alarm or despair, but with a confidence that the Word of God will stand through all of these changes.

In our time of unsettling transitions, as generations rise and pass away, and with them their cherished institutions, the Church of Jesus Christ will persist, springing up unexpectedly out of the ashes of failed human creations. The persistence of the Church points ahead to the only truly eternal hope: the Kingdom of God. When we try to substitute anything transitory for the Kingdom of God, we are susceptible to idolatry. But when we keep our focus on the Kingdom of God, we can proceed through all transitions, however tumultuous they may be, with hope and a steady course.

No Fault Ministry

Date Published: 06/24/2009

I am challenged by what the Apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 6:3. He wants to conduct himself in such a way that “no fault may be found with our ministry.” I aspire to a similar reputation, knowing full well how vulnerable I am in both public ministry and personal life. I have witnessed first hand the wounds to congregations and individuals when pastoral trust is broken, and I know I am not exempt. I resonate with Paul when in 1 Corinthians 9:27 he expresses his concern that “after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.”

In my 34 years of ordained ministry, I believe Candy and I have opened our hearts wide without restriction in affection for those among whom we serve, just as Paul expresses in 2 Corinthians 6:11. And we have been rewarded as many have opened their hearts to us as well (v. 12)

In August of 2006 my spiritual director asked me to think of images for my pastoral ministry. For a long time I have embraced Eugene Peterson’s use of the image of Odysseus lashed to the mast as he sails past the sirens to wrestle with calling, vocation and ordination. Regardless of how enticing the distractions, the pastor stays with the Church, and as much as possible the congregation. The responsibility for the spiritual well being of individuals and the congregation cannot be abandoned just because it is painful or difficult or because something else (even another congregation) is more attractive. This is a living model of the rich and joyful harvest of long term fidelity and commitment.

Paul writes of his experiences of “great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger.” (vv. 4-5) Though I would not come close to comparing myself with Paul in the difficulties I have faced in my years of ministry, I certainly identify with the experience. But I also have aspired to bring to my ministry the same resources Paul did to his: “purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God.” (vv. 6-7)

Oh, That We Might See Better Times

Date Published: 02/04/2010

There are many who say, “O that we might see some good! Let the light of your face shine on us, O LORD!” (Psalm 4:6 New Revised Standard Version) The Book of Common Prayer translates it, “Many are saying, ‘Oh, that we might see better times.’” and closes the quotes before the appeal to God.

That seems to me to capture the current ethos: down economy, collapsed discussion of health care, confusion in responding to terrorists, post-earthquake suffering in Haiti, even loss of confidence in Toyota quality. “Many are saying, ‘Oh, that we might see better times.’” But we look everywhere except to God for those better times: governments, businesses.

Society is not going to appeal to God to shine the light of his face on us, and we certainly cannot and should not expect government or business to do so. That is the calling of God’s people! When we hear the voices of many saying, “Oh, that we might see better times.” that is our cue to pray for the light of God’s face to shine on us and on the people around us who do not acknowledge God – whether they are our neighbors near or far!

As the people of God, we (not schools, governments, businesses, institutions) have the Holy Spirit so we can recognize the light of God’s face, that may seem to be but a dim glimmer or glow, and not only point it out but also direct attention to its source.