Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Cost of Discipleship

I spent much of the day on January 21 watching dual events. The primary event that held my interest was the celebration and recognition of the ministry of Martin Luther King, Jr. Though I had seen many of the scenes, and heard most of the stories of the Civil Rights movement in America, for several decades, I was moved again by the willingness of those at the head of the movement to step so far out against segregation. Certainly, they knew that what they were doing was dangerous. Certainly, they understood that their involvement was likely to cost them their lives.
 
I saw in many of the historical documentation, whether print or film, names like Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson. I saw Harry Bellefonte and white clergy leaders who marched alongside their brothers. Each of them had something meaningful to lose. Each had compelling reason to remain silent in the face of considerable social pressure.
 
I was moved again by the power of the movement, by the nearly intuitive right of all humans to live with equal rights. I was astounded again by the ignorance of those who were deeply convinced that it was right to restrict civil rights to particular types.
 
I changed the channel to watch coverage of the Presidential inauguration. There, standing before tens of thousands of supporters and interested onlookers, was an African-American man, Barack Obama, who was sworn into his second term as this nation's President.
 
The juxtaposition was providential. The cost of discipleship, paid by King and others in the civil rights movement of the 60's, was repaid, some fifty years hence, with an American President who just happens to be of color. King's assassination gave birth to genuine social change. King's ministry made possible the inauguration of Barack Obama.
 
Whether or not we agree wholeheartedly or in part with Barack Obama's policies, we must see his Presidency as the result of half-a-century's worth of struggle for equal rights. Obama is product of   the maturation of our culture. He is a sign that America has approached the will of God, that all humans are seen as equal, despite the insignificance of their skin color.
 
Therefore, I make a simple request. Whether or not you believe in the policies of this Presidency, whether or not you embrace Obama's social and economic policies, I would very much appreciate if you were to extend to him the respect of his office and his historical significance. Please refrain from calling names and using political epithets. I am offended by them. In the centuries to come, I am convinced that this Presidency will be seen as a turning point in American history.
 
I hope that this Presidency leads us nearer to God's kingdom. I pray for it. Whether or not you like the party or the politics, I hope that you join me in that prayer.   

Monday, January 07, 2013

Life Long Learning Institute

Once again, I will be teaching a class at the University of Dayton's Life Long Learning Institute. The class will run from January 14 through the end of February. Class sessions are scheduled for Mondays, from 12:30-2:30 at UD's River Campus. Registration for the class is full, with a waiting list, and is now closed to further registrations.
 
The class is entitled "You Believe...What?" The course sub-title actually gives away more of the course content. "Comparative New Testament Literary Diversity as a Source for Contemporary Theological Diversity." The course is actually more about the diversity of New Testament literature than it is about our theological differences today. Understanding that theological foundations differ, however, and realizing the distinct way that those literary streams have flown throughout subsequent history, gives us particular insight into what divides us theologically today.
 
The theological diversity of New Testament literature is actually part of Shiloh's Confirmation program curriculum. Many of you, who have been around Shiloh for some time, have seen the basic information. It consists of a chart that lists the five component parts of systematic theology: Christology, Pneumatology, Anthropology, Soteriology and Ecclesiology. The chart then divides the four periods of literary New Testament development: Apostolic Age, Gospel Era, Institutionalization, and Historical Jesus. The chart demonstrates that each phase of New Testament literary development results in distinct systematic theologies.
 
Though we are largely unaware of it being the case, much of our current theological diversity stems from the divergent view of New Testament literature. Much of it stems from scriptural diversity, but certainly not all of it. We must also admit that very few of us, including denominations and theologians, share theologies that are shaped systematically. Truth be told, each of us picks and chooses parts of theological constructs that do not necessarily cooperate with others that we might favor. These two factors, I think, give rise to contemporary theological diversity.
 
Because the traditions that we embrace are less than systematic theologically, and because individuals tend to accept the teachings of the traditions in which they were raised, much contemporary theological belief resembles an ala carte menu from which we make fairly random selections. Much of our contemporary theological diversity lies somewhere in the gap between systematic theology and the lack of systematic theology in our traditions and personal belief systems.
 
I think that is probably a good thing. There is really no need for us all to believe or act alike. There is no requirement of detailed unity in the Christian Church. Perhaps if we spent as much time and energy understanding and accepting the views of others as we spend in defending our own views, the world would be a more peaceful place.
 
When Shiloh completes the initial curriculum at Boston's - 6:00-7:00 on Wednesday evenings - we will likely utilize this same curriculum. I am happy to be part of UD's LLI program, and to offer what we already do here at Shiloh to the wider community. 

Thursday, January 03, 2013

New Year

Welcome to 2013. Thankfully, 2012 is now behind us. In many ways, 2012 was a difficult year. It was filled with tragedy, partisan politics, and natural disaster. It was characterized by continuing warfare and the meteoric rise of social media run amok.

One particular cultural development, perhaps central to much of the character of 2012, was the ability and willingness of persons, whether on social media sites or through political campaigns, to print or say absolutely erroneous things about others, without repercussion. Fact finding political pundits built careers around debunking claims that were made in the campaigns of 2012. So egregious were the misrepresentations that one such political pundit claimed that nothing said in a political ad was to be believed.
 
The same was true on social media sites. On such sites, people are free to claim anything that they see fit to claim. They can write anything about anyone. Many do. Electronic bullying runs rampant on facebook and twitter. Certainly, much of that which is claimed against persons  on social media sites is overstated, or foundationally untrue.
 
This leads me to make a suggestion for 2013. What if we, members and friends of Shiloh Church, were to take a stand against personal attacks of any kind? What if we refused to heed news reports that sensationalized the deeds and foibles of celebrities? What if we refused to be swayed by personal attacks on politicians or persons in authority? What if it were not okay with us to tear others down in order to build up one's self, or to support one's own opinion over that of the other?
 
Can the Church take a stand against personal attack? Can we each act in such a way that we begin to formulate, at least around ourselves, an attack-free zone?
 
In 2013, I resolve to tolerate no personal attack. I vow to stand against those that are made in my presence, and to call those that I come into contact with, through social media, for instance, what they are. I would hope that my friends would call me to accountability for those times when I fail to honor this commitment.
 
Perhaps standing against personal attack is a means by which we would restore the fabric that ties us all together. Maybe it is a way for us to construct anew a culture wherein we see one another as brothers and sisters instead of sides of an aisle or sides of an opinion.
 
Will you help in making this a movement? Will you join me?
 
See You Sunday!