There are just a few weeks remaining in my tenure as Senior Pastor of Shiloh Church United Church of Christ. I begin my new positions, as Designated Association Minister of the Southwest Ohio Northern Kentucky Association, on August 1, 2017. A good portion of that time will be taken in making transition, moving from one office to another, acclimating myself to Association ministries, issues and initiatives, setting myself as a member of the Conference staff and a member of the Conference Board of Directors.
The next few weeks will also be a period in which I work my way from the ministries and relationships of Shiloh Church. Your new pastoral leadership will not have to deal with the challenge of having the ex-Sr. Pastor sticking his nose in Shiloh's business or having to deal with boundaries. I understand clearly that the ethical code for pastors in the United Church of Christ states that pastors who leave a setting are not to return to that setting. Doing so undermines the authority and affects the relationship of subsequent pastoral staff. I refuse to harm Shiloh Church and its ongoing ministry in any such way.
Therefore, as of July 30, 2017, I fully intend to remove myself from the Shiloh scene. Lisa and I will be moving our memberships to another local United Church of Christ congregation. We will not attend Shiloh activities or be available in any pastoral manner to the people, groups, committees, or congregation of Shiloh Church. It may seem harsh. Believe me, however, when I claim that it is in the congregation's best interest that pastors take such a firm stand on this all-important ethical issue. Those who do not do damage to communities of faith.
That said, I must admit that this is a bittersweet move for me. Shiloh Church has comprised more than half of my professional ministerial career. I began my ministry at Zion UCC in Junction City, KS, where I served for five years. It was then on to Christ Church UCC, Evansville, IN, where I served for seven and one half years. It was from there that I came to Dayton, OH. These have been seventeen of the most challenging, most rewarding, most difficult, most taxing, yet most joyous years that I have spent in ministry.
Based on what I was told in the congregation's profile, what I learned from the search team that interviewed me, what I discovered from previous Shiloh pastors, and from meeting members and friends of Shiloh Church UCC, I admit to coming into my ministry here with a plan. It was sometimes successful, sometimes an abject failure, always a challenge, but consistently my focus.
Church is all about its theological foundations. Every congregation has a personality, an aim, a purpose. But those characteristics come from theological foundations. Rarely do congregations deal with foundational theological constructs. In my tenure here, Shiloh has dealt with foundational theological constructs. The congregation has done significant work on its infrastructure, its identity, it reason-for-being. I congratulate the congregation for having the courage and the openness to deal with those profound issues.
We did more than spiritual infrastructure work, however. We were also able to do a great deal of physical work. In my tenure, Shiloh accomplished well over 1 million dollars of work on its facility. The improvements have saved the congregation money, time, and have significantly reduced the carbon footprint of the place. Shiloh is ready to use its facility in some new and creative ways as the congregation continues to meet the ministry needs of its community.
So, I say goodbye to Shiloh Church United Church of Christ. It is time for new leadership and new avenues of ministry and service. I wish you well, my friends. May God continue to be pleased with the ministry and mission in which you engage, because, as I go, I know "Shiloh Church is Living the Word by Serving the World."
Monday, June 19, 2017
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
The Hard Road of Dreams
This past Sunday was both Memorial Day Sunday and Ascension Sunday. In order to tie the two concepts together, I highlighted a very important book about which I want to tell you more. It is written by a local Dayton resident, Robert B. Kahn. In this "Expanded Autobiography," entitled, The Hard Road of Dreams: REMEMBERING NOT TO FORGET. It is published by Braughler Books and should be somewhat widely available.
The Hard Road of Dreams is the all-too-true account of an American hero who, as a Jew, suffered through Nazi persecution, and would-be extermination, in Germany and Luxembourg. Mr. Kahn and his family escaped to America in a haunting tale of peril and courage. After arriving in America, Robert Kahn fought for America in WWII, not in the European Theater where he wanted to serve but in New Guinea. After the war, and following his faithful military service, Mr. Kahn continued to work for the Air Force as a strategic planning specialist and consultant. It is in this capacity that he came to Dayton, Ohio.
The Hard Road of Dreams is an important read. I recommend it to everyone who reads The Shiloh Insider. A warning, however. This is a mature work, and a dense one. It is fraught with emotions and connections that carry the reader deeply into one's own experiences, and far beyond them, where we are invited into the experiences of others. Imagine, through no fault of your own, watching the authorities of your own country ransack your home, claiming your property and your bank accounts, throwing your belongings onto your front yard and burning them in a giant bonfire. Imagine your neighbors and fellow citizens cheering and chanting hateful slogans, spitting at you and your family, closing you off from any assistance or hope of recrimination. Imagine the fear of having to leave your country of origin for unknown territories, simply to escape the unreasonable and unfair discrimination of your own homeland. Imagine learning of the extermination of 6,000,000 of your countrymen, women and children who are slain simple for the religion that they practice.
Robert Kahn's is the kind of heroic story that we can all honor and respect. It is a story of sacrifice, courage, desperation and hopelessness, combined with a resilience and determination that defies reason. In the cause of full disclosure, I must acknowledge that I had met Robert and Gert Kahn, and appreciated them, well before my reading of The Hard Road of Dreams. Reading the book has simply extended my impression of them to heroic levels.
I have read thousands of books in my life. Few have touched and affected me like The Hard Road of Dreams. I fully and energetically recommend it to each of you. By the way, Bob and Gert were with us at our 10:25 service of worship this past Sunday. If you were not with us, and the majority of you were not, you missed the opportunity to greet them. It was a distinct honor for me to have them with us. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Kahn. You are among my heroes!
The Hard Road of Dreams is the all-too-true account of an American hero who, as a Jew, suffered through Nazi persecution, and would-be extermination, in Germany and Luxembourg. Mr. Kahn and his family escaped to America in a haunting tale of peril and courage. After arriving in America, Robert Kahn fought for America in WWII, not in the European Theater where he wanted to serve but in New Guinea. After the war, and following his faithful military service, Mr. Kahn continued to work for the Air Force as a strategic planning specialist and consultant. It is in this capacity that he came to Dayton, Ohio.
The Hard Road of Dreams is an important read. I recommend it to everyone who reads The Shiloh Insider. A warning, however. This is a mature work, and a dense one. It is fraught with emotions and connections that carry the reader deeply into one's own experiences, and far beyond them, where we are invited into the experiences of others. Imagine, through no fault of your own, watching the authorities of your own country ransack your home, claiming your property and your bank accounts, throwing your belongings onto your front yard and burning them in a giant bonfire. Imagine your neighbors and fellow citizens cheering and chanting hateful slogans, spitting at you and your family, closing you off from any assistance or hope of recrimination. Imagine the fear of having to leave your country of origin for unknown territories, simply to escape the unreasonable and unfair discrimination of your own homeland. Imagine learning of the extermination of 6,000,000 of your countrymen, women and children who are slain simple for the religion that they practice.
Robert Kahn's is the kind of heroic story that we can all honor and respect. It is a story of sacrifice, courage, desperation and hopelessness, combined with a resilience and determination that defies reason. In the cause of full disclosure, I must acknowledge that I had met Robert and Gert Kahn, and appreciated them, well before my reading of The Hard Road of Dreams. Reading the book has simply extended my impression of them to heroic levels.
I have read thousands of books in my life. Few have touched and affected me like The Hard Road of Dreams. I fully and energetically recommend it to each of you. By the way, Bob and Gert were with us at our 10:25 service of worship this past Sunday. If you were not with us, and the majority of you were not, you missed the opportunity to greet them. It was a distinct honor for me to have them with us. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Kahn. You are among my heroes!
Monday, May 22, 2017
Memorial Day
My Grandfather Robinson fought in WWII. My father served in two branches of the military and served as a Med Tech in a MASH unit in the Korean Conflict. My elder brother retired from the Air Force as a career NCO. He worked with an developed radar and satellite imagery.
Luckily, none of them lost their lives in the course of their military service. Still, though, Memorial Day has special meaning in families that have been as deeply involved in the military as mine has. There are tens of thousands of families who mourn and grieve the loss of loved ones whose lives were sacrificed in the course of military service.
One of the few discussions that my father and I ever had about his military service consisted of me asking why we had American troops in Korea. This being years later, sometime in the 1970's, he explained the basics of Cold War politics, about the roles of North and South Korea, and how the United States saw South Korea as land that was worthy of protection from North Korean aggression. The sides had been drawn between Democracy and Communism, between forces of aggression and peace, between good and bad.
I understand completely the need to protect others from the aggression of some. It is a hallmark of application of the Christian faith. We are called upon to sacrifice ourselves in attempts to protect and defend the rights of those who cannot or will not protect themselves. We stand in solidarity with those who are attacked, maligned, debased, excluded and rejected. As long as this is the motivation for military action, I find it hard to argue against. Military action is less about the abuse of power and technology as it is about the protection of those who are relatively weaker and victimized.
I am currently reading an autobiographical account of a person who lived, as a Jew, through the Holocaust. The events of November, 1938 are particularly painful to read. I am certain that they are even more painful to remember. Why otherwise good people would stand and jeer as the homes of Jewish neighbors were ransacked and burned is utterly and completely beyond my ability to understand. I am proud that my country had a significant role in putting an end to the tyranny that my brothers and sisters suffered. I am sorry that it took so many lives in the process of the war that it required, however. It continues to confuse me, too, how we might so easily fall under the spell of those who claim priority of any one type, kind, type or clan over that of any other. The danger remains real and potential.
On Memorial Day, we set aside a time to remember the sacrifices that are made in order to protect our freedoms and the freedoms of those who need a protective and defending presence. It is a tragic fact of who we have been. Perhaps there may come a time when we, as a global community, grasp the idea that the costs of warfare greatly outweigh its benefits. Maybe war may cease and we may learn to live in peace.
Nevertheless, we remember those who have paid the ultimate price in protecting us and others.
Luckily, none of them lost their lives in the course of their military service. Still, though, Memorial Day has special meaning in families that have been as deeply involved in the military as mine has. There are tens of thousands of families who mourn and grieve the loss of loved ones whose lives were sacrificed in the course of military service.
One of the few discussions that my father and I ever had about his military service consisted of me asking why we had American troops in Korea. This being years later, sometime in the 1970's, he explained the basics of Cold War politics, about the roles of North and South Korea, and how the United States saw South Korea as land that was worthy of protection from North Korean aggression. The sides had been drawn between Democracy and Communism, between forces of aggression and peace, between good and bad.
I understand completely the need to protect others from the aggression of some. It is a hallmark of application of the Christian faith. We are called upon to sacrifice ourselves in attempts to protect and defend the rights of those who cannot or will not protect themselves. We stand in solidarity with those who are attacked, maligned, debased, excluded and rejected. As long as this is the motivation for military action, I find it hard to argue against. Military action is less about the abuse of power and technology as it is about the protection of those who are relatively weaker and victimized.
I am currently reading an autobiographical account of a person who lived, as a Jew, through the Holocaust. The events of November, 1938 are particularly painful to read. I am certain that they are even more painful to remember. Why otherwise good people would stand and jeer as the homes of Jewish neighbors were ransacked and burned is utterly and completely beyond my ability to understand. I am proud that my country had a significant role in putting an end to the tyranny that my brothers and sisters suffered. I am sorry that it took so many lives in the process of the war that it required, however. It continues to confuse me, too, how we might so easily fall under the spell of those who claim priority of any one type, kind, type or clan over that of any other. The danger remains real and potential.
On Memorial Day, we set aside a time to remember the sacrifices that are made in order to protect our freedoms and the freedoms of those who need a protective and defending presence. It is a tragic fact of who we have been. Perhaps there may come a time when we, as a global community, grasp the idea that the costs of warfare greatly outweigh its benefits. Maybe war may cease and we may learn to live in peace.
Nevertheless, we remember those who have paid the ultimate price in protecting us and others.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Ascension Moved?
The usual pattern of the first half of the Liturgical Church Year, that which represents God's Sacrament in Jesus Christ runs like this: JESUS' BIRTH.....JESUS' BAPTISM.....JESUS' MINISTRY IN GALILEE.....JESUS' TRIP TO JERUSALEM.....JESUS' CRUCIFIXION.....JESUS' RESURRECTION.....JESUS' POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES.....JESUS' ASCENSION.
Not all of the accounts follow this formula, and not all of them include the same major events in the same order, but in the Revised Common Lectionary, this is the pattern. For instance, the Gospel According to Mark lacks birth narrative and, in its authentic form, post-Resurrection appearances. John includes no birth narrative, but does include post-Resurrection appearances. Most poignantly, in John's Gospel, the line between Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Jesus in Jerusalem is blurred. In fact, it is this point that leads tradition to conclude that Jesus' earthly ministry lasts three years instead of the one that is suggested in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
I have been a faithful student of the Revised Common Lectionary for thirty years of active ministry, one that works tirelessly in depicting its rhythms, fluid focuses, inner-workings, and particular Gospel interpretations. But there is one thing about the story of Jesus that does not seem to me to make great sense for the first half of the Liturgical Church Year. One particular chapter of the Jesus story seems rather contrary to the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ.
Jesus arrived in the usual way, at birth. At some point in his young adulthood, Jesus was baptized. This Baptism, not a ritual for the forgiveness of sins but a powerful expression of God's power now granted him, Jesus began his human restoration ministry in Galilee. After several meaningful experiences that called him to a ministry of greater scope, Jesus set off to Jerusalem. He encountered there the Temple and Roman authorities and called the hypocrisy of both power structures to accountability beyond their own focus. As a result, Jesus was killed. Three days later, his corpse disappeared from the tomb. The claim was made that Jesus was Resurrected. Jesus appeared to his followers, though the number of appearances, the audience, and the timing of those post-Resurrection appearances differs significantly. This post-Resurrection stage lasted for forty days.
At the end of Jesus' forty day series of post-Resurrection appearances, Jesus ascended to the Father, where, we are told, he sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty.
The story begins with Jesus' birth and ends with his ascension. He comes and goes. Therein lies the pivotal problem that I have with the story of God's Sacrament in the first half of the Revised Common Lectionary and the Liturgical Church Year. Why does Jesus leave? Why does he ascend? If his post-Resurrection appearance is a spiritual event in the life of his followers, if it serves as the incubation period of the Church that would be born in his name, why did Jesus have to leave it? The story seems to be in the way of God's ongoing Sacrament.
Perhaps that is the precise point of the ascension. In order to provide for the Church that will be born in his name, perhaps it is vital and necessary that he depart. If Jesus is around, after all, who will labor in his stead? If Jesus remains, the Church to which he is core might simply adore and worship him. The point of the Church is not adoration in worship, however. The point of the Church is to engage in the human reclamation and restoration project that Jesus began in Galilee and perfected in Jerusalem. It is to move from adoration in worship to action that represents him in the world...on the streets.
So, I conclude that Jesus' ascension belongs, theologically, to the second half of the Liturgical Church Year and the Revised Common Lectionary. It is a necessary component of the Church's sacramental work. Without ascension, the followers of Jesus sit in awe of him, but do little in his name. With ascension, the followers of Jesus shape their ministries and missions in his name, according to his example, in his stead. The Church becomes vital to the ongoing spirit of Jesus Christ, and only so far as the Church represents him is Jesus still with us.
Therefore, I move that we organize the Liturgical Church Year and the Revised Common Lectionary with the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the second half instead of the first. All in favor?
Not all of the accounts follow this formula, and not all of them include the same major events in the same order, but in the Revised Common Lectionary, this is the pattern. For instance, the Gospel According to Mark lacks birth narrative and, in its authentic form, post-Resurrection appearances. John includes no birth narrative, but does include post-Resurrection appearances. Most poignantly, in John's Gospel, the line between Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Jesus in Jerusalem is blurred. In fact, it is this point that leads tradition to conclude that Jesus' earthly ministry lasts three years instead of the one that is suggested in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
I have been a faithful student of the Revised Common Lectionary for thirty years of active ministry, one that works tirelessly in depicting its rhythms, fluid focuses, inner-workings, and particular Gospel interpretations. But there is one thing about the story of Jesus that does not seem to me to make great sense for the first half of the Liturgical Church Year. One particular chapter of the Jesus story seems rather contrary to the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ.
Jesus arrived in the usual way, at birth. At some point in his young adulthood, Jesus was baptized. This Baptism, not a ritual for the forgiveness of sins but a powerful expression of God's power now granted him, Jesus began his human restoration ministry in Galilee. After several meaningful experiences that called him to a ministry of greater scope, Jesus set off to Jerusalem. He encountered there the Temple and Roman authorities and called the hypocrisy of both power structures to accountability beyond their own focus. As a result, Jesus was killed. Three days later, his corpse disappeared from the tomb. The claim was made that Jesus was Resurrected. Jesus appeared to his followers, though the number of appearances, the audience, and the timing of those post-Resurrection appearances differs significantly. This post-Resurrection stage lasted for forty days.
At the end of Jesus' forty day series of post-Resurrection appearances, Jesus ascended to the Father, where, we are told, he sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty.
The story begins with Jesus' birth and ends with his ascension. He comes and goes. Therein lies the pivotal problem that I have with the story of God's Sacrament in the first half of the Revised Common Lectionary and the Liturgical Church Year. Why does Jesus leave? Why does he ascend? If his post-Resurrection appearance is a spiritual event in the life of his followers, if it serves as the incubation period of the Church that would be born in his name, why did Jesus have to leave it? The story seems to be in the way of God's ongoing Sacrament.
Perhaps that is the precise point of the ascension. In order to provide for the Church that will be born in his name, perhaps it is vital and necessary that he depart. If Jesus is around, after all, who will labor in his stead? If Jesus remains, the Church to which he is core might simply adore and worship him. The point of the Church is not adoration in worship, however. The point of the Church is to engage in the human reclamation and restoration project that Jesus began in Galilee and perfected in Jerusalem. It is to move from adoration in worship to action that represents him in the world...on the streets.
So, I conclude that Jesus' ascension belongs, theologically, to the second half of the Liturgical Church Year and the Revised Common Lectionary. It is a necessary component of the Church's sacramental work. Without ascension, the followers of Jesus sit in awe of him, but do little in his name. With ascension, the followers of Jesus shape their ministries and missions in his name, according to his example, in his stead. The Church becomes vital to the ongoing spirit of Jesus Christ, and only so far as the Church represents him is Jesus still with us.
Therefore, I move that we organize the Liturgical Church Year and the Revised Common Lectionary with the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the second half instead of the first. All in favor?
Monday, May 08, 2017
Can Progressive Theology Survive?
It was one of those fascinating conversations in which one finds one's self without ever actually intending to do so. I was presenting at a multiple-church gathering on the topic of the theology of the Progressive Church movement. The plenary presentations made up the majority of the morning agenda, with two 45 minute sessions. The first sessions dealt with early church history, particularly the shift that took place in 66/70 c.e. from an imminent understanding of the kingdom to a delayed understanding. The second session dealt with Biblical material, and how the 7 canonical books that were written before the shift represent a far different set of assumptions than the twenty that came about following it.
In the afternoon session, I presented on the cultural shift that has been taking place globally since about 1968, and how that shift can be understood as a call for the Church of Jesus Christ to return to a theological foundation that predates the theological shift of 66/70. (If you want to know more about this theological shift, and its results for Christian history, I encourage you to attend Shiloh's Bible studies on Tuesday evenings at 7:00 and Thursday mornings at 10:00.)
The conversation in question took place after the closing Q & A session. I though that I had laid out a fairly cogent argument for seeing Progressive Theology as a return to the ethical archetype that stood as foundation of the practical theologies of Jesus and Paul. A clergy person approached me as I was gathering my materials and said, "You know that Progressive Theology will never work, right?"
I may have sputtered a bit in my response. "H..Huh?" "W....What?" "What do you mean?"
The person explained that Progressive Theology was doomed to fail because it offered no tangible incentive. No one would follow the ethical archetype of sacrificing one's self in order to go out of her or his way in order to meet the needs of others. The only way that theology works is if there is some reward offered in return for that kind of faithfulness.
It was an intelligent point of view, I thought. The theology that was practiced by Jesus and Paul was doomed to failure because its practice did not offer any personal reward. No one would do it without a measurable advantage to doing so.
We engaged one another for quite some time. I explained that what my colleague was pointing out was precisely the thinking that lead to the theological switch of 66/70. Of course, that switch was forced by a number of other historical and practical matters as well, but there was its crux. The incentive of universal human benefit is not adequate motivation for persons to sacrifice their desires, needs, dreams, aspirations, opinions or values. While the ethical archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection seems good in theory, it will never succeed in practice. It lacks personal and individual incentive. The Church needs to offer the reward of eternal life, salvation beyond death, an immortal human soul, one that is rewarded for doing the right kinds of things in life.
I did not disagree too vehemently, except to say that the theology that underlies the Progressive Church movement is not based in its popularity or practicality. It is based, instead, in its faithfulness to the ethical archetype that is expressed in the historical Jesus and Paul. It is to this that the Church of Jesus Christ is called. In my opinion, it is this to which culture, since 1968, is evolving. Whether or not it is a draw, it is faithful to the primary layers of Christ-like practice.
So, what do you think? Can the Church of Jesus Christ return to a theology that reflects the ethical archetype of Jesus/Paul? Or is the Church of Jesus Christ required to continue on the path of the theological shift of 66/70? How key is the personal and individual incentive of the heaven-rewarded immortal human soul? Is improvement and benefit of the entire human family enough motivation for sacrifice? Can Progressive Church Theology survive or thrive?
In the afternoon session, I presented on the cultural shift that has been taking place globally since about 1968, and how that shift can be understood as a call for the Church of Jesus Christ to return to a theological foundation that predates the theological shift of 66/70. (If you want to know more about this theological shift, and its results for Christian history, I encourage you to attend Shiloh's Bible studies on Tuesday evenings at 7:00 and Thursday mornings at 10:00.)
The conversation in question took place after the closing Q & A session. I though that I had laid out a fairly cogent argument for seeing Progressive Theology as a return to the ethical archetype that stood as foundation of the practical theologies of Jesus and Paul. A clergy person approached me as I was gathering my materials and said, "You know that Progressive Theology will never work, right?"
I may have sputtered a bit in my response. "H..Huh?" "W....What?" "What do you mean?"
The person explained that Progressive Theology was doomed to fail because it offered no tangible incentive. No one would follow the ethical archetype of sacrificing one's self in order to go out of her or his way in order to meet the needs of others. The only way that theology works is if there is some reward offered in return for that kind of faithfulness.
It was an intelligent point of view, I thought. The theology that was practiced by Jesus and Paul was doomed to failure because its practice did not offer any personal reward. No one would do it without a measurable advantage to doing so.
We engaged one another for quite some time. I explained that what my colleague was pointing out was precisely the thinking that lead to the theological switch of 66/70. Of course, that switch was forced by a number of other historical and practical matters as well, but there was its crux. The incentive of universal human benefit is not adequate motivation for persons to sacrifice their desires, needs, dreams, aspirations, opinions or values. While the ethical archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection seems good in theory, it will never succeed in practice. It lacks personal and individual incentive. The Church needs to offer the reward of eternal life, salvation beyond death, an immortal human soul, one that is rewarded for doing the right kinds of things in life.
I did not disagree too vehemently, except to say that the theology that underlies the Progressive Church movement is not based in its popularity or practicality. It is based, instead, in its faithfulness to the ethical archetype that is expressed in the historical Jesus and Paul. It is to this that the Church of Jesus Christ is called. In my opinion, it is this to which culture, since 1968, is evolving. Whether or not it is a draw, it is faithful to the primary layers of Christ-like practice.
So, what do you think? Can the Church of Jesus Christ return to a theology that reflects the ethical archetype of Jesus/Paul? Or is the Church of Jesus Christ required to continue on the path of the theological shift of 66/70? How key is the personal and individual incentive of the heaven-rewarded immortal human soul? Is improvement and benefit of the entire human family enough motivation for sacrifice? Can Progressive Church Theology survive or thrive?
Tuesday, May 02, 2017
Dear Generation-Most-Recent
I have intentionally engaged over the past few weeks in serious, albeit brief, religious conversations with persons of the mysterious Generation-Most-Recent. I prefer to not call them Millenials, because it sounds too much like Millenialists, which is another thing altogether. To be honest, I don't find much homogeneity in the generation, except a few obvious characteristics that persons are eager to note. People of this generation claim to be "spiritual instead of religious." Persons say that they are not involved in any religion, but pray to a God and believe in "Him." Despite what we in the Church have been told, persons of this generation seems to appreciate structure and liturgical consistency, Persons seem to want a way to be people of faith, but without all the bureaucratic infighting, focus on meaningless minutiae, orthodoxies, doctrines or labels. These young men and women do not appreciate denominationalism or institutional politics. Many simply want to do what they know to be in everyone's best interest. (One note: Just because these young men and women say that this is what they hold dear does not mean that they are any better at it than previous generations. Most are no better at spending their time, talent and treasure in pursuit of heavenly virtues than any generation before them.)
There is one additional shared characteristic that every young person that I have talked to has mentioned. They say that they are not religious because religion teaches people to reject, exclude, judge, criticize, be superior, condemn and hate.
I spend all of my time attempting to teach people to love. I expend all of my energy in trying to get people to focus on the things that really matter. No matter how much time and energy is put into the important factors of living out our faith, however, people will complain about being hot and cold, many times on the same days. They will say that the sound system is too loud, while others complain that they cannot hear. They will search out conditions of the facility about which to complain. They will make snarky comments about the state of the church when they refuse to embody the very reason behind its existence. People will tie decision-making up in impossible organizationalism and institutionalism, so much so that it is remarkable that the church gets anything done. I get it, dear persons of the Generation-Most-Recent. I share your frustration and your disappointment.
Mostly, I get that the history of religions is full of hate, rejection, exclusion, superiority, and judgment. Just when it seems that we are turning a corner in openness and acceptance, cultural elements pull us back into an old, tired, unreasonable configurations of justified sectarianism, protectionism, fear and fascism. Oh, I get it, persons of the Generation-Most-Recent. It is not right. It is not fair. It in no way reflects the founder of our faith or a faithful practice that is built around his mission and ministry.
Here's the deal, though. You are the ones who can call the Church on its participation in damaging and destructive religious patterns. You are the ones who call the Church to accountability to its founder, to the purpose that lies at the foundation of its existence. Remaining outside the Church and pointing a finger at it achieves nothing. You are its hope, its future, its promise. Without you in it, the Church has scant little future, let alone being religion at its best. We can work together in order to shape a Church that is faithful to Christ Jesus' mission and ministry. We can configure missions and ministries that reflect the ethical archetype of Christ.
Or you can just let us pass into irrelevance, hoisted upon our own petard of self-concern, institutionalization, member entitlement, and narrow-mindedness. Won't you please save us from ourselves, dear persons of the Generation-Most Recent? Won't you please prove that you are a generation of more than empty words and antagonistic cynicism? Won't you please reach out a saving hand to the drowning potential of the Church of Jesus Christ...or the Synagogue...or the Mosque...or the Temple...or the Sacred Spaces and Sacred Practices? We need you!
There is one additional shared characteristic that every young person that I have talked to has mentioned. They say that they are not religious because religion teaches people to reject, exclude, judge, criticize, be superior, condemn and hate.
I spend all of my time attempting to teach people to love. I expend all of my energy in trying to get people to focus on the things that really matter. No matter how much time and energy is put into the important factors of living out our faith, however, people will complain about being hot and cold, many times on the same days. They will say that the sound system is too loud, while others complain that they cannot hear. They will search out conditions of the facility about which to complain. They will make snarky comments about the state of the church when they refuse to embody the very reason behind its existence. People will tie decision-making up in impossible organizationalism and institutionalism, so much so that it is remarkable that the church gets anything done. I get it, dear persons of the Generation-Most-Recent. I share your frustration and your disappointment.
Mostly, I get that the history of religions is full of hate, rejection, exclusion, superiority, and judgment. Just when it seems that we are turning a corner in openness and acceptance, cultural elements pull us back into an old, tired, unreasonable configurations of justified sectarianism, protectionism, fear and fascism. Oh, I get it, persons of the Generation-Most-Recent. It is not right. It is not fair. It in no way reflects the founder of our faith or a faithful practice that is built around his mission and ministry.
Here's the deal, though. You are the ones who can call the Church on its participation in damaging and destructive religious patterns. You are the ones who call the Church to accountability to its founder, to the purpose that lies at the foundation of its existence. Remaining outside the Church and pointing a finger at it achieves nothing. You are its hope, its future, its promise. Without you in it, the Church has scant little future, let alone being religion at its best. We can work together in order to shape a Church that is faithful to Christ Jesus' mission and ministry. We can configure missions and ministries that reflect the ethical archetype of Christ.
Or you can just let us pass into irrelevance, hoisted upon our own petard of self-concern, institutionalization, member entitlement, and narrow-mindedness. Won't you please save us from ourselves, dear persons of the Generation-Most Recent? Won't you please prove that you are a generation of more than empty words and antagonistic cynicism? Won't you please reach out a saving hand to the drowning potential of the Church of Jesus Christ...or the Synagogue...or the Mosque...or the Temple...or the Sacred Spaces and Sacred Practices? We need you!
Monday, April 24, 2017
Easter Spirituality
The Church of Jesus Christ is in the season of Easter. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Easter is a season. It is not just a day. In fact, Easter is a point of view. It is a perspective, a way of life, a spirituality unto itself.
The Spirituality of Easter is all-too-often taken for granted. While it has stood as a hallmark of Spring, an omen that portends the end of the school year, the coming of warmer weather and a return to outdoor living, Easter is actually much more inclusive and encompassing than we have often imagined. Easter is new life. It cannot be had unless it comes from a dying, the closing of a door, moving on from what had been and moving toward that which shall be.
Easter is an opportunity to move toward a healthier version of what it means to be fully human, fully spiritual, fully incarnational.
Let's see if I can articulate this in an understandable manner. Jesus was Crucified. His lifeless body was placed in a borrowed tomb. On the third day following his death, women (or a woman) of the community around Jesus go to the tomb in order to: 1. Be certain that Jesus is really quite sincerely dead instead of being just merely dead; 2. Treat his body with caustic spices that are meant to hasten the decomposition process; 3. Wrap his corpse in linen cloths that, together with the spices, allow the entire process to take place in the length of one calendar year. Shock of all shocks, Jesus' body is not there. The angels declare that he has been raised from the dead. The women share the news and the disciples finally receive affirmation, in a series of post-resurrection appearances.
If this completes our telling of the story, we miss its power, however. Jesus' body is a vessel in which the animating spirit of God dwells, at least as human life was understood in the Middle Platonism of Jesus' day. The corporeal, physical flesh was little more than a vehicle for the animating spirit. It was an opportunity for that which lives to articulate the heavenly virtues in which the spirit existed apart from animating the flesh. The core of Jesus' life was therefore spiritual. It was in the Spirit that Jesus defined himself, understood himself, determined his behavior and shaped his life. It is in and from the Spirit that Jesus ministered and served.
To be fully human in Jesus' understanding meant to be fully spiritual. The point to which Jesus represented that spiritual reality of his humanness set him apart from those who live only in corporeal, physical, carnal reality. To put it bluntly, spiritual reality lives in order to makes the lives of others healthier, happier and more productive while the physical reality seeks to make one's self healthier, happier and more productive.
Easter Spirituality suggests that the new life of Christ is incarnational only insofar as we live as the body of Christ. It matters only insofar as we live spiritually, as empowered, enabled, called and sent ones, who dedicate our lives to the practice of those same heavenly virtues that Jesus so faithfully demonstrated. In this spirituality, we can cease our search for the body of Jesus Christ. In the spirituality of Easter, we are the lost body of Christ. His Spirit dwells in us, each of us and all of us. We represent him when we live in that spirituality.
We can be Easter together, then, in the incarnational reality that Jesus so vitally expressed. We are the body of Christ!
The Spirituality of Easter is all-too-often taken for granted. While it has stood as a hallmark of Spring, an omen that portends the end of the school year, the coming of warmer weather and a return to outdoor living, Easter is actually much more inclusive and encompassing than we have often imagined. Easter is new life. It cannot be had unless it comes from a dying, the closing of a door, moving on from what had been and moving toward that which shall be.
Easter is an opportunity to move toward a healthier version of what it means to be fully human, fully spiritual, fully incarnational.
Let's see if I can articulate this in an understandable manner. Jesus was Crucified. His lifeless body was placed in a borrowed tomb. On the third day following his death, women (or a woman) of the community around Jesus go to the tomb in order to: 1. Be certain that Jesus is really quite sincerely dead instead of being just merely dead; 2. Treat his body with caustic spices that are meant to hasten the decomposition process; 3. Wrap his corpse in linen cloths that, together with the spices, allow the entire process to take place in the length of one calendar year. Shock of all shocks, Jesus' body is not there. The angels declare that he has been raised from the dead. The women share the news and the disciples finally receive affirmation, in a series of post-resurrection appearances.
If this completes our telling of the story, we miss its power, however. Jesus' body is a vessel in which the animating spirit of God dwells, at least as human life was understood in the Middle Platonism of Jesus' day. The corporeal, physical flesh was little more than a vehicle for the animating spirit. It was an opportunity for that which lives to articulate the heavenly virtues in which the spirit existed apart from animating the flesh. The core of Jesus' life was therefore spiritual. It was in the Spirit that Jesus defined himself, understood himself, determined his behavior and shaped his life. It is in and from the Spirit that Jesus ministered and served.
To be fully human in Jesus' understanding meant to be fully spiritual. The point to which Jesus represented that spiritual reality of his humanness set him apart from those who live only in corporeal, physical, carnal reality. To put it bluntly, spiritual reality lives in order to makes the lives of others healthier, happier and more productive while the physical reality seeks to make one's self healthier, happier and more productive.
Easter Spirituality suggests that the new life of Christ is incarnational only insofar as we live as the body of Christ. It matters only insofar as we live spiritually, as empowered, enabled, called and sent ones, who dedicate our lives to the practice of those same heavenly virtues that Jesus so faithfully demonstrated. In this spirituality, we can cease our search for the body of Jesus Christ. In the spirituality of Easter, we are the lost body of Christ. His Spirit dwells in us, each of us and all of us. We represent him when we live in that spirituality.
We can be Easter together, then, in the incarnational reality that Jesus so vitally expressed. We are the body of Christ!
Monday, April 10, 2017
Not Easter Week!
Contrary to popular opinion, this is not Easter Week! Starting on the first day of the week, Easter Week is next week, Sunday April 16 and following.
This week is Crucifixion Week.
Crucifixion Week begins with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, at what we call Palm/Passion Sunday. It is no Triumphant Entry, however. Jesus arrives at Jerusalem and decides to enter the city in the symbolic form of an alternative king who comes for coronation. This is great news for those who beg at the Temple Gate. The population exists there as a gathering of lepers, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the poor, the Mudblood, the menstruating, the ugly, the broken and the damned. Unable to work, they sit and beg. There is no social safety net for the rejected and excluded masses of Bethany and Bethphage. They see Jesus as new hope, the possibility of social systems that will consider them, attend to their needs, see them and care for them. As Jesus rides past them, as a new king for coronation, these suffering masses applaud, yell, bow down, genuflect. chant and honor the new king who comes to deliver them from their miserable state.
These are tense times. Passover is pending. It starts Friday at sundown. Passover is the ancient recognition and celebration of emancipation from the slave pits of Egypt. It honors liberation from the oppressive power of the Empire. It is dangerous to be Empire in a season of celebration of liberation.
Of course, the Temple had reached accommodation with Rome. As long as Judaism remained a benign family and spiritual religious practice, it would be allowed to exist within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. As long as religious sentiments were held behind closed doors and out of public discourse, then the Temple remained safe. The moment that Judaism became a public display, however, the second it stepped from the realm of personally held beliefs, it became a threat to the Pax Romana.
On Sunday, the Temple authorities heard the stirrings. It threw the ruling classes of the Temple into turmoil. Some would-be prophet from Galilee, named Jesus, had caused a riot at the Gate. He arrived at Jerusalem in full public demonstration, as a new king for coronation, riding on an animal (or two, in Matthew's case) that had never before been ridden. The people at the Gate were all roiled up, chanting that their new king had come to deliver them. No matter what the Temple authority said or did, they could not hide the purely political statements that were inherent in this symbolic Jerusalem entry. The Pax Romana was in danger, and the very existence of the Temple was at stake.
Jesus marches on through the Gate to the Temple. The people of the Gate imagine that they might follow, but doing so would simply be too dangerous, too risky. Perhaps this "Jesus of Nazareth" would work for them, do miracles on their behalf, free them from their malaise, deliver them from their suffering. While they refused to accompany him to the Temple, their hope rode in with him on his pack animal. The Temple authorities were waiting with a less-then-warm-welcome. Jesus had endangered the already tenuous relationship between the Temple and Rome. One can only imagine Jesus, leading the Gate people to the Temple, meeting with a harsh arrival, turning to what he hopes is a throng, only to discover that Jesus stands utterly alone.
Jesus exits Jerusalem. He returns to the Temple on Monday, seeing for himself the economic and social injustice that is connected to the Temple. Jesus throws over the tables on the money changers, who charge a premium for the transfer of currency for the Temple-tax shekel. He sees, too, the many and varied animals that had been brought to the Temple for would-be sacrifices. Jesus knows that those animals would be sold instead, that only one animal would be sacrificed and the rest simply collected as additional revenue. Jesus sets loose the animals from their pens and cages. That is Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Jesus returns to the Temple, where he teaches God's will as opposed to Temple injustice. The people of the Gate remain at the Gate, however. The people of the Temple remain at the temple. Nothing changes.
On Thursday, Jesus gathers with his disciples for a traditional Passover celebration. They dine. During the meal, Jesus alters the traditional liturgy with a new act that involved bread and wine. After they eat, Jesus leads his disciples (and others) our to the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus prays while his closest associates sleep. Finally, after waking them, Jesus is betrayed and arrested. He faces several sham trials, one before the High Priest and another before Proconsul, Pilate. Pilate offers to release Jesus. The Roman bureaucrat even pits his release against a notorious outlaw, named Barabbas. But the crowd wants Jesus' blood. They chant for his crucifixion. They demand his death. Pilate is powerless before them and washes his hands of the affair, saying, "His blood is on your heads."
They taunt Jesus. They beat him. They spit at and on him. They tear his skin with a crown of thorns and flog him repeatedly. The guard is allowed its fun. Finally, they lead Jesus out of the city to Golgatha, a high hill from which all will see those who oppose Roman authority hoisted on crosses. This is the hill upon which Jesus is lifted high on the Cross of Crucifixion. Hour later, thinking that God had abandoned him, seeing in the small crowd not a single one of his followers, Jesus breathes his last. Utterly alone, Jesus dies. The hope of those at the Gate dies with him. The Temple is safe.
The week ends with Jesus dead in a borrowed tomb. He is simply dead.
This is not Easter week! But next week is!
This week is Crucifixion Week.
Crucifixion Week begins with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, at what we call Palm/Passion Sunday. It is no Triumphant Entry, however. Jesus arrives at Jerusalem and decides to enter the city in the symbolic form of an alternative king who comes for coronation. This is great news for those who beg at the Temple Gate. The population exists there as a gathering of lepers, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the poor, the Mudblood, the menstruating, the ugly, the broken and the damned. Unable to work, they sit and beg. There is no social safety net for the rejected and excluded masses of Bethany and Bethphage. They see Jesus as new hope, the possibility of social systems that will consider them, attend to their needs, see them and care for them. As Jesus rides past them, as a new king for coronation, these suffering masses applaud, yell, bow down, genuflect. chant and honor the new king who comes to deliver them from their miserable state.
These are tense times. Passover is pending. It starts Friday at sundown. Passover is the ancient recognition and celebration of emancipation from the slave pits of Egypt. It honors liberation from the oppressive power of the Empire. It is dangerous to be Empire in a season of celebration of liberation.
Of course, the Temple had reached accommodation with Rome. As long as Judaism remained a benign family and spiritual religious practice, it would be allowed to exist within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. As long as religious sentiments were held behind closed doors and out of public discourse, then the Temple remained safe. The moment that Judaism became a public display, however, the second it stepped from the realm of personally held beliefs, it became a threat to the Pax Romana.
On Sunday, the Temple authorities heard the stirrings. It threw the ruling classes of the Temple into turmoil. Some would-be prophet from Galilee, named Jesus, had caused a riot at the Gate. He arrived at Jerusalem in full public demonstration, as a new king for coronation, riding on an animal (or two, in Matthew's case) that had never before been ridden. The people at the Gate were all roiled up, chanting that their new king had come to deliver them. No matter what the Temple authority said or did, they could not hide the purely political statements that were inherent in this symbolic Jerusalem entry. The Pax Romana was in danger, and the very existence of the Temple was at stake.
Jesus marches on through the Gate to the Temple. The people of the Gate imagine that they might follow, but doing so would simply be too dangerous, too risky. Perhaps this "Jesus of Nazareth" would work for them, do miracles on their behalf, free them from their malaise, deliver them from their suffering. While they refused to accompany him to the Temple, their hope rode in with him on his pack animal. The Temple authorities were waiting with a less-then-warm-welcome. Jesus had endangered the already tenuous relationship between the Temple and Rome. One can only imagine Jesus, leading the Gate people to the Temple, meeting with a harsh arrival, turning to what he hopes is a throng, only to discover that Jesus stands utterly alone.
Jesus exits Jerusalem. He returns to the Temple on Monday, seeing for himself the economic and social injustice that is connected to the Temple. Jesus throws over the tables on the money changers, who charge a premium for the transfer of currency for the Temple-tax shekel. He sees, too, the many and varied animals that had been brought to the Temple for would-be sacrifices. Jesus knows that those animals would be sold instead, that only one animal would be sacrificed and the rest simply collected as additional revenue. Jesus sets loose the animals from their pens and cages. That is Monday. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Jesus returns to the Temple, where he teaches God's will as opposed to Temple injustice. The people of the Gate remain at the Gate, however. The people of the Temple remain at the temple. Nothing changes.
On Thursday, Jesus gathers with his disciples for a traditional Passover celebration. They dine. During the meal, Jesus alters the traditional liturgy with a new act that involved bread and wine. After they eat, Jesus leads his disciples (and others) our to the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus prays while his closest associates sleep. Finally, after waking them, Jesus is betrayed and arrested. He faces several sham trials, one before the High Priest and another before Proconsul, Pilate. Pilate offers to release Jesus. The Roman bureaucrat even pits his release against a notorious outlaw, named Barabbas. But the crowd wants Jesus' blood. They chant for his crucifixion. They demand his death. Pilate is powerless before them and washes his hands of the affair, saying, "His blood is on your heads."
They taunt Jesus. They beat him. They spit at and on him. They tear his skin with a crown of thorns and flog him repeatedly. The guard is allowed its fun. Finally, they lead Jesus out of the city to Golgatha, a high hill from which all will see those who oppose Roman authority hoisted on crosses. This is the hill upon which Jesus is lifted high on the Cross of Crucifixion. Hour later, thinking that God had abandoned him, seeing in the small crowd not a single one of his followers, Jesus breathes his last. Utterly alone, Jesus dies. The hope of those at the Gate dies with him. The Temple is safe.
The week ends with Jesus dead in a borrowed tomb. He is simply dead.
This is not Easter week! But next week is!
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
Standing with Jesus in Dangerous Times
Jesus approaches Jerusalem. It is the capital of power and authority, the seat of religious tradition and a symbol of institutional compromise with Rome. Yet, Jerusalem stands, opulent and extravagant, amidst the suffering of its own people. Worse, the city stands in cooperation with the forces that have given rise to the suffering. The Temple exists as proof of the collusion. It dare not speak up. It dare not act out. It dare not express its opposition to empirical power, lest it be utterly and eternally destroyed. The Temple must be protected above all, even if it means silence in the face of oppression and injustice.
This fact is especially sentient during Passover. Now, Passover was an ancient recognition of Israel's emancipation from nearly three centuries of Egyptian slavery. You know the story. Moses, the one-time pretender to the throne of Egypt, had been found guilty of murdering an Egyptian guard who was abusing a Hebrew slave. Moses' unintentional subterfuge was revealed. Before he was sentenced to flogging or death, Moses escaped to the land of Midian, where he married into the High Priest's family. There he became heir to the high priesthood of Midian, following his father-in-law, Jethro. One day, Moses saw, on the side of the great mountain, a bush that was afire but not consumed. He went up on the mountain and was directed, by a cloud-voice, to return to Egypt and emancipate the Hebrew slaves. Moses went. After a series of plagues, the spirit of death killed all the first-born of Egypt, including the son of Pharaoh. The Hebrews were spared only by painting their doorposts withe the blood of a lamb. The spirit of death "passed over" them.
From the time the Hebrews settled in the "Promised Land," to the time when they returned to the land from Babylonian exile, Passover remained the core celebration. Within the celebration, Jews recognize the bitterness of their slavery, the oppression of the Egyptians, the emancipating power of God's outstretched arm, and the responsibility to which God's benevolence called them in the land.
In the time of Jesus, Jerusalem stood in allegiance with the forces of oppression, violence and fear. Jerusalem stood with Rome. In fact, many of the policies and practices of Judaism were, at worst, amended and, at best, accentuated, in order to fit the Roman agenda. While the Pharisees and Sadducees protected the Temple system in compromise with the Romans, the Zealots and Essenes separated themselves from the collusion of the Temple.
Jesus was likely an Essene who followed his mentor and Rabbi, John, who we know as "the Baptist." Jesus stood against the Temple authority. A year earlier, John had been arrested and martyred. Jesus had taken over the mantle of leadership and was distinguishing himself as "The One."
It was Passover. Jesus returned to Jerusalem from Galilee, where he had created a movement of his own, based on inclusion, the Spirit of God and the potential in each person to represent God's power on Earth. He was going there to state his case, to argue his point, to speak up for those who had been victimized by the Roman way of life, and to work the kind of emancipation that Moses had accomplished centuries earlier.That the Temple had become the enemy of God's people was meaningful for Jesus. After a "triumphant" entry, he went there. The town was abuzz, in turmoil, the Gospel of Matthew reads, because Jesus entered in the symbolic manner of an ancient king on the day of coronation. (He also entered miraculously in Matthews account, on two animals.) He went to the Temple and found exactly the kind of economic and spiritual corruption that he anticipated. Jesus reacted violently, clearly challenging the Temple authorities.
It is perhaps ironic, during Passover, that an attack on the Temple authorities is also seen as an attack on Rome. The Temple authorities react. They get Rome to react. Jesus ends up dead, on the Cross of social revolution and political dissidence, as the sun sets to begin the recognition of Passover.
Who stands today for those who are victimized by the systems under which we live? Who will march on our Jerusalems? Who will speak up? Who will act out? Who will dare to put themselves at risk? Who will place themselves, with Jesus, on the Cross? Or will we simply remain silent, abandoning him, like his own disciples, waiting for some divine miracle to deliver the oppressed? This is a dangerous age, my friends. These are challenging times. Let's stop concerning ourselves with the unpopularity of the church in our culture and act for those who are rejected and excluded by it. You know, following Jesus.
This fact is especially sentient during Passover. Now, Passover was an ancient recognition of Israel's emancipation from nearly three centuries of Egyptian slavery. You know the story. Moses, the one-time pretender to the throne of Egypt, had been found guilty of murdering an Egyptian guard who was abusing a Hebrew slave. Moses' unintentional subterfuge was revealed. Before he was sentenced to flogging or death, Moses escaped to the land of Midian, where he married into the High Priest's family. There he became heir to the high priesthood of Midian, following his father-in-law, Jethro. One day, Moses saw, on the side of the great mountain, a bush that was afire but not consumed. He went up on the mountain and was directed, by a cloud-voice, to return to Egypt and emancipate the Hebrew slaves. Moses went. After a series of plagues, the spirit of death killed all the first-born of Egypt, including the son of Pharaoh. The Hebrews were spared only by painting their doorposts withe the blood of a lamb. The spirit of death "passed over" them.
From the time the Hebrews settled in the "Promised Land," to the time when they returned to the land from Babylonian exile, Passover remained the core celebration. Within the celebration, Jews recognize the bitterness of their slavery, the oppression of the Egyptians, the emancipating power of God's outstretched arm, and the responsibility to which God's benevolence called them in the land.
In the time of Jesus, Jerusalem stood in allegiance with the forces of oppression, violence and fear. Jerusalem stood with Rome. In fact, many of the policies and practices of Judaism were, at worst, amended and, at best, accentuated, in order to fit the Roman agenda. While the Pharisees and Sadducees protected the Temple system in compromise with the Romans, the Zealots and Essenes separated themselves from the collusion of the Temple.
Jesus was likely an Essene who followed his mentor and Rabbi, John, who we know as "the Baptist." Jesus stood against the Temple authority. A year earlier, John had been arrested and martyred. Jesus had taken over the mantle of leadership and was distinguishing himself as "The One."
It was Passover. Jesus returned to Jerusalem from Galilee, where he had created a movement of his own, based on inclusion, the Spirit of God and the potential in each person to represent God's power on Earth. He was going there to state his case, to argue his point, to speak up for those who had been victimized by the Roman way of life, and to work the kind of emancipation that Moses had accomplished centuries earlier.That the Temple had become the enemy of God's people was meaningful for Jesus. After a "triumphant" entry, he went there. The town was abuzz, in turmoil, the Gospel of Matthew reads, because Jesus entered in the symbolic manner of an ancient king on the day of coronation. (He also entered miraculously in Matthews account, on two animals.) He went to the Temple and found exactly the kind of economic and spiritual corruption that he anticipated. Jesus reacted violently, clearly challenging the Temple authorities.
It is perhaps ironic, during Passover, that an attack on the Temple authorities is also seen as an attack on Rome. The Temple authorities react. They get Rome to react. Jesus ends up dead, on the Cross of social revolution and political dissidence, as the sun sets to begin the recognition of Passover.
Who stands today for those who are victimized by the systems under which we live? Who will march on our Jerusalems? Who will speak up? Who will act out? Who will dare to put themselves at risk? Who will place themselves, with Jesus, on the Cross? Or will we simply remain silent, abandoning him, like his own disciples, waiting for some divine miracle to deliver the oppressed? This is a dangerous age, my friends. These are challenging times. Let's stop concerning ourselves with the unpopularity of the church in our culture and act for those who are rejected and excluded by it. You know, following Jesus.
Monday, March 27, 2017
On the Backswing
I golf. But I cup my left wrist on my backswing. I am also prone to the dreaded flying elbow. As a result, I often hit my drives offline. Why do they plant trees just where my ball in prone to go, anyway?
The backswing determines, in oh so many ways, where the ball will go. Even while the muscles and the brain cooperate to try to correct its path, the backswing, and the grip, the stance and the ability to keeps one's head down, determine the quality of the resulting swing.
This posting is not about golf, however. It is more about a Hegelian synthesis, and what it means to see the pendulum of cultural evolution swing so far in the reverse of its ultimate and inevitable course. I just thought it was more interesting to tie the concept to golf than to an arcane philosophical model.
Let me illustrate. In a Hegelian synthesis, inevitable progress is made when the pendulum of cultural evolution swings far into uncharted and unfamiliar territory. There is always a popular response that causes the pendulum to swing far in the opposite direction, often leading to repressive and regressive policies, actions and tendencies. Over time, the pendulum of cultural evolution comes to some kind of synthesis. While that synthesis represents neither end of the pendulum's swing, while it reaches neither extreme, the compromise situation that it reached moves the culture onward and forward.
We can say, to some degree of certainty, that the cultural evolution in which we find ourselves is expressed in the pendulum swing toward otherwise radical inclusion, acceptance of diversity and the unity of all persons. The pendulum has swung far from the comfortable and familiar confines of past traditions, values, understandings and assumptions. This swing has caused some, if not most, to respond in fear and anger, focusing on the stasis that is lost therein instead of looking to what progress lay ahead. That segment of the population has attempted, at least somewhat successfully, to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction, back toward sectarianism, segregation, white male hegemony, privilege and power. The pendulum had swung so far in the first fifty years of cultural evolution that it has caused a regressive and repressive response.
This is no surprise. It is unfortunate, however, mainly because it has been accompanied by a violent inhumanity, a narrow mindedness, a name-calling, exclusionary partisanship that tears at the fabric of who we are as a people and a culture. Terror attacks have become the norm. Violence against other human beings is commonplace. Abridged human rights are justified by the need for safety and security in a fearful and dangerous age. Life is being devalued in the pendulum backswing.
Here is the good news. Despite the desperate attempts to reformulate culture in repressive and regressive ways, cultural evolution is inevitable. It will no longer support divisiveness, segregation or undo privilege. Culture marches on toward its ultimate constitution. We can be confident that the utlimate constitution of culture reflects acceptance of diverse persons, positions, identities, life-styles, backgrounds, races, genders, etc. The list is all-inclusive and unfolding.
Here is the cautionary tale, though. Just as the backswing in golf determines where the drive sends the ball, so the pendulum swing against the tide of cultural evolution determines how healthy and whole we will be in the synthesis. How much damage will we have to suffer? How many lives will be lost? How much violence will be relied upon in the name of social order? How far will we devalue human life or trample on human rights?
It is enough! It is time to find the cultural synthesis. To do so will take work and compromise from those at either end of the extreme pendulum swings. The vast majority of those between the extremes must demand that the conversation lead to solutions instead of continued divisiveness, violence, name-calling and devaluation. The entire course of human culture depends upon it...upon us.
The backswing determines, in oh so many ways, where the ball will go. Even while the muscles and the brain cooperate to try to correct its path, the backswing, and the grip, the stance and the ability to keeps one's head down, determine the quality of the resulting swing.
This posting is not about golf, however. It is more about a Hegelian synthesis, and what it means to see the pendulum of cultural evolution swing so far in the reverse of its ultimate and inevitable course. I just thought it was more interesting to tie the concept to golf than to an arcane philosophical model.
Let me illustrate. In a Hegelian synthesis, inevitable progress is made when the pendulum of cultural evolution swings far into uncharted and unfamiliar territory. There is always a popular response that causes the pendulum to swing far in the opposite direction, often leading to repressive and regressive policies, actions and tendencies. Over time, the pendulum of cultural evolution comes to some kind of synthesis. While that synthesis represents neither end of the pendulum's swing, while it reaches neither extreme, the compromise situation that it reached moves the culture onward and forward.
We can say, to some degree of certainty, that the cultural evolution in which we find ourselves is expressed in the pendulum swing toward otherwise radical inclusion, acceptance of diversity and the unity of all persons. The pendulum has swung far from the comfortable and familiar confines of past traditions, values, understandings and assumptions. This swing has caused some, if not most, to respond in fear and anger, focusing on the stasis that is lost therein instead of looking to what progress lay ahead. That segment of the population has attempted, at least somewhat successfully, to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction, back toward sectarianism, segregation, white male hegemony, privilege and power. The pendulum had swung so far in the first fifty years of cultural evolution that it has caused a regressive and repressive response.
This is no surprise. It is unfortunate, however, mainly because it has been accompanied by a violent inhumanity, a narrow mindedness, a name-calling, exclusionary partisanship that tears at the fabric of who we are as a people and a culture. Terror attacks have become the norm. Violence against other human beings is commonplace. Abridged human rights are justified by the need for safety and security in a fearful and dangerous age. Life is being devalued in the pendulum backswing.
Here is the good news. Despite the desperate attempts to reformulate culture in repressive and regressive ways, cultural evolution is inevitable. It will no longer support divisiveness, segregation or undo privilege. Culture marches on toward its ultimate constitution. We can be confident that the utlimate constitution of culture reflects acceptance of diverse persons, positions, identities, life-styles, backgrounds, races, genders, etc. The list is all-inclusive and unfolding.
Here is the cautionary tale, though. Just as the backswing in golf determines where the drive sends the ball, so the pendulum swing against the tide of cultural evolution determines how healthy and whole we will be in the synthesis. How much damage will we have to suffer? How many lives will be lost? How much violence will be relied upon in the name of social order? How far will we devalue human life or trample on human rights?
It is enough! It is time to find the cultural synthesis. To do so will take work and compromise from those at either end of the extreme pendulum swings. The vast majority of those between the extremes must demand that the conversation lead to solutions instead of continued divisiveness, violence, name-calling and devaluation. The entire course of human culture depends upon it...upon us.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Dig for Us!
Leadership in a volunteer agency, like the church, can be risky business. Let's be honest. People do not have to come to churches. They do not have to join, and they certainly do not have to be active or vital participants. Those who do so choose to do so.
In a best-case scenario, people would join Christian churches in order to respond to a spiritual call to action. They would be there to learn, to be inspired and to figure out how to use the gifts that God has given them in service to the whole human family. In that case we could move, as the new SONKA Ministry Council theological foundation states: Toward being actors in the process of shaping communities of justice and peace. This is to say that the aim of our local churches, and of the Association, is to nurture and support the spiritual calling of their men, women and children as incarnational forces that affect community development and provide community service. Pastors are called to guide the flock into greater faithfulness to this vision.
All too often, however, leadership in our churches falls more prominently into the category of meeting member needs and struggling against member expectations, opinions and traditions. In order to attract members, and to please those who have remained from past generations, the church often falls into the trap of serving itself. When churches fall into the pit of populist movements and member service, they move away from the spiritual calling of the men, women and children to whom spiritual care is assumed.
Moses guided God's people from the slave pits of Egypt, freeing them from their centuries-long bondage. He led them across the Negev Desert, to the south southeast, toward Sinai, from whence Moses had been sent. Along the way, the people encountered hunger. They called upon Moses to feed them. They encountered blistering sun. They called upon Moses to provide shelter. They encountered great thirst. They called upon Moses for water. "Feed us." "Give us shelter." "Give us water to drink."
Where was Moses supposed to get food, water and shelter? He had no supernatural powers to conjure from the arid air food, shelter or water. The only way that Moses could have made water in the middle of the desert was to dig for the people a very, very deep well. Would they have been satisfied had Moses dug from them? Yet, each time the former slaves threatened Moses' bodily safety, each time they challenged his calling, every time they doubted his leadership, Moses turned to the Lord for direction. And, each time, God provided. There was quail. There was manna. There was the rock at Horeb, from which water flowed freely before God's people.
Moses never lost sight of the destination, however. While the immediate needs of God's people were tangent to that trek, Moses persisted. While the people did not know, could not understand, refused to imagine the destination of their journey, Moses knew where he was going, where he was leading, and he was confident that the people would end up where God intended.
How are pastors to lead in churches that are filled with real persons, with real needs, real desires, real doubts and authentic understanding and misunderstandings? Perhaps Moses would serve as model. He did not dig for them. He did not plunge the depths of their spiritual calling. He simply led them toward the destination, relying on God to meet their needs along the way. Moses did not become fixated upon the tangents, but maintained focus, knowing where he was leading and trusting the possibility of fulfillment.
Today, like then, people want the pastor to dig for them, to solve their problems, to resolve their issues, to make sacrifice easier, to take the sting from vocation, to promise them some great reward in return for their faithfulness. Fortunately,however, the eyes of the leaders remain on the ball. We have only this: Toward being actors in the process of shaping communities of justice and peace.
In a best-case scenario, people would join Christian churches in order to respond to a spiritual call to action. They would be there to learn, to be inspired and to figure out how to use the gifts that God has given them in service to the whole human family. In that case we could move, as the new SONKA Ministry Council theological foundation states: Toward being actors in the process of shaping communities of justice and peace. This is to say that the aim of our local churches, and of the Association, is to nurture and support the spiritual calling of their men, women and children as incarnational forces that affect community development and provide community service. Pastors are called to guide the flock into greater faithfulness to this vision.
All too often, however, leadership in our churches falls more prominently into the category of meeting member needs and struggling against member expectations, opinions and traditions. In order to attract members, and to please those who have remained from past generations, the church often falls into the trap of serving itself. When churches fall into the pit of populist movements and member service, they move away from the spiritual calling of the men, women and children to whom spiritual care is assumed.
Moses guided God's people from the slave pits of Egypt, freeing them from their centuries-long bondage. He led them across the Negev Desert, to the south southeast, toward Sinai, from whence Moses had been sent. Along the way, the people encountered hunger. They called upon Moses to feed them. They encountered blistering sun. They called upon Moses to provide shelter. They encountered great thirst. They called upon Moses for water. "Feed us." "Give us shelter." "Give us water to drink."
Where was Moses supposed to get food, water and shelter? He had no supernatural powers to conjure from the arid air food, shelter or water. The only way that Moses could have made water in the middle of the desert was to dig for the people a very, very deep well. Would they have been satisfied had Moses dug from them? Yet, each time the former slaves threatened Moses' bodily safety, each time they challenged his calling, every time they doubted his leadership, Moses turned to the Lord for direction. And, each time, God provided. There was quail. There was manna. There was the rock at Horeb, from which water flowed freely before God's people.
Moses never lost sight of the destination, however. While the immediate needs of God's people were tangent to that trek, Moses persisted. While the people did not know, could not understand, refused to imagine the destination of their journey, Moses knew where he was going, where he was leading, and he was confident that the people would end up where God intended.
How are pastors to lead in churches that are filled with real persons, with real needs, real desires, real doubts and authentic understanding and misunderstandings? Perhaps Moses would serve as model. He did not dig for them. He did not plunge the depths of their spiritual calling. He simply led them toward the destination, relying on God to meet their needs along the way. Moses did not become fixated upon the tangents, but maintained focus, knowing where he was leading and trusting the possibility of fulfillment.
Today, like then, people want the pastor to dig for them, to solve their problems, to resolve their issues, to make sacrifice easier, to take the sting from vocation, to promise them some great reward in return for their faithfulness. Fortunately,however, the eyes of the leaders remain on the ball. We have only this: Toward being actors in the process of shaping communities of justice and peace.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Bridging the Divide
I ran into a member of Shiloh Church yesterday as I was getting gas in Englewood. This person was coming out of the store as I was going in. Admittedly, I was irritated that I had to go into the store. There was no paper in the gas pump from which I had pumped a full tank. Really?! Why don't one of the four people workers who were milling about the store at the time come out and change the paper in the pump instead of making me bear the inconvenience of having to go in to retrieve the print out?
Whatever the case, I was not a happy camper. As we passed I said hello, of course. Then I added that we had missed the family yesterday (this was on Monday following Shiloh's Black History Celebration service). The person exchanged my greeting and told me that they had planned to stay home. I asked why. I probably should not have asked why. But I did. The person explained that it was very difficult to get everyone around on the Sunday that the time changes (it was also the beginning of Daylight Savings Time). Besides, the person continued, it was that Black History service. We aren't Black and we don't like the long service (it usually runs about 90 minutes, as it had that Sunday).
It is true that the person that I engaged in this case was Caucasian. The whole family was white, as a matter of fact. Then I said something else that I probably would not have said if I had not had to run into the store in order to get the receipt that should have been produced by the pump at which I had pumped a full tank of gas. I said that one of the problems of racial divide in our community is that we won't go out of our way to share histories, to share experiences, to share stories. We still practice segregation of experience and that leads to bias and forms prejudice.
The person frowned and added that the person thought that, "If we have to suffer through that, at least you could do it in February, which is designated 'Black History Month.'"
Uh oh. I asked, "If we held the service in February, on a Sunday when Daylight Savings Time was not scheduled to begin, would your family then come?" The person said that the family would likely still not come. I told the person that it was sad that such was the case. Worse, it is exactly that kind of unwillingness that gives life to discrimination, prejudice and racial bias.
How are we supposed to span the divide if we refuse to work at doing so? How can we imagine the unity out of which we live if we never learn, never hear, never see anything other than what the media, or bigotry, tells us?
I find it sad in the extreme that persons are not willing to sacrifice a few additional minutes, a bit of their precious attention, even a scant bit of energy and enthusiasm to bridging the racial divide that plagues us. It lends credibility to what was stated at the book review that followed our community luncheon. A woman from the community attended and said that, "There is something wrong in white communities that refuse to work at ensuring that we are all one genetic family..." Some people were struck by the idea. Some were offended. I was troubled too, until I engaged yesterday a member of Shiloh Church at the Speedway in Englewood. The words rang in my mind.
Yes, ma'am, I agree. There is something wrong in communities that will not work at bridging the racial divide...or any other divide for that matter. The Church of Jesus Christ is called and equipped to represent his mission and ministry. He died for all people. He healed broken relationships. He went out of his way for people who were different from him and his. We can do so much more...so much better!
By the way, I print this with permission of the person that I engaged in conversation, as long as I do not mention the person's name. It doesn't matter who it is anyway, as the lesson applies to all and each of us.
Whatever the case, I was not a happy camper. As we passed I said hello, of course. Then I added that we had missed the family yesterday (this was on Monday following Shiloh's Black History Celebration service). The person exchanged my greeting and told me that they had planned to stay home. I asked why. I probably should not have asked why. But I did. The person explained that it was very difficult to get everyone around on the Sunday that the time changes (it was also the beginning of Daylight Savings Time). Besides, the person continued, it was that Black History service. We aren't Black and we don't like the long service (it usually runs about 90 minutes, as it had that Sunday).
It is true that the person that I engaged in this case was Caucasian. The whole family was white, as a matter of fact. Then I said something else that I probably would not have said if I had not had to run into the store in order to get the receipt that should have been produced by the pump at which I had pumped a full tank of gas. I said that one of the problems of racial divide in our community is that we won't go out of our way to share histories, to share experiences, to share stories. We still practice segregation of experience and that leads to bias and forms prejudice.
The person frowned and added that the person thought that, "If we have to suffer through that, at least you could do it in February, which is designated 'Black History Month.'"
Uh oh. I asked, "If we held the service in February, on a Sunday when Daylight Savings Time was not scheduled to begin, would your family then come?" The person said that the family would likely still not come. I told the person that it was sad that such was the case. Worse, it is exactly that kind of unwillingness that gives life to discrimination, prejudice and racial bias.
How are we supposed to span the divide if we refuse to work at doing so? How can we imagine the unity out of which we live if we never learn, never hear, never see anything other than what the media, or bigotry, tells us?
I find it sad in the extreme that persons are not willing to sacrifice a few additional minutes, a bit of their precious attention, even a scant bit of energy and enthusiasm to bridging the racial divide that plagues us. It lends credibility to what was stated at the book review that followed our community luncheon. A woman from the community attended and said that, "There is something wrong in white communities that refuse to work at ensuring that we are all one genetic family..." Some people were struck by the idea. Some were offended. I was troubled too, until I engaged yesterday a member of Shiloh Church at the Speedway in Englewood. The words rang in my mind.
Yes, ma'am, I agree. There is something wrong in communities that will not work at bridging the racial divide...or any other divide for that matter. The Church of Jesus Christ is called and equipped to represent his mission and ministry. He died for all people. He healed broken relationships. He went out of his way for people who were different from him and his. We can do so much more...so much better!
By the way, I print this with permission of the person that I engaged in conversation, as long as I do not mention the person's name. It doesn't matter who it is anyway, as the lesson applies to all and each of us.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Dribbling Footballs
The liturgical season of Lent is, perhaps, the most ancient and storied of the liturgical seasons. It likely began as early as the late first century, when Lent was added as a season of preparation and instruction, prior to new adherents to the faith being welcomed at Easter. Most of those who were joining at that time were of Jewish background and faith, though there were certainly some Gentile proselytes as well. Either way, these new initiates required considerable instruction that was neither Judaic nor Roman.
I appreciate these roots from which the season of Lent has sprung. In fact, I hope that we can return to something akin to the original purpose of the season. This is not in order to gain new initiates to the faith. No. Instead, it is because each of us benefits from refresher courses, a concentration on the basics, and a way for us to keep an eye on the ball of Lenten practice. It can be a whole new understanding of March Madness.
Attempts to focus on the basics of the Christian faith are especially important in an age when the Church of Jesus Christ is in transition. The Church of Jesus Christ is evolving from understandings and practice of the faith that belongs to previous cultural, social and religious eras, to ones that lead us headlong into new articulations of the faith's core values and faithful practices. These new understandings and articulations are actually more of a reprise, or recovery, of ancient understandings and practices. The evolutionary step leads us back to a time before institutionalized Jesus and orthodox Christ. In that brief age, those who followed in the "way of Christ" understood themselves as Christ's incarnation, as his representatives, as his embodiment in the world. Before 90 c.e., and maybe even before 70, followers of Christ Jesus saw themselves as a community called to do what he did, to sacrifice themselves for the sake of social, religious and cultural justice. They did less believing and more doing. They listened to fewer sermons than they performed. They were active participants in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.
In our current cultural, social and religious evolution, we are moving toward this pre-institutional age of Christian witness and action. We are moving away from doctrine and orthodoxy, away from exclusionary and judgmental policies and procedures, toward inclusion, empowerment, call and acceptance. No matter how desperately some factions of Church and politics try to pull the culture backward, away from this pre-institutional age of Christian witness, the culture will evolve. It will move forward. It will be deterred only momentarily on its inevitable course toward full realization.
I have told the story many times. A coach, on the first day of college basketball practice, has the team simply dribble for three hours. The team members dribbled with their right hands, then their lefts. They dribbled behind their backs and between their legs. They dribbled in straight lines and around pylons. They worked on body positions and hand positions. They dribbled with someone in front of them, behind them and all around them. All morning, the team just dribbled. And this was college! Finally, the coach sat the team in the bleachers and asked them why, did they think, they just spent three hours dribbling. After a few snarky comments, the coach told the team that they spent all this time on dribbling because ball handling was the basic activity of the game and, if they controlled the ball, then they controlled the game.
The allegory works until one realizes that, given the evolutionary strides into which the Church of Jesus Christ is being called, we are trying to dribble footballs. It is time to rethink the game, my friends, because we are playing with an entirely new set of rules. Let's use the season of Lent to focus on some of the new fundamentals.
I appreciate these roots from which the season of Lent has sprung. In fact, I hope that we can return to something akin to the original purpose of the season. This is not in order to gain new initiates to the faith. No. Instead, it is because each of us benefits from refresher courses, a concentration on the basics, and a way for us to keep an eye on the ball of Lenten practice. It can be a whole new understanding of March Madness.
Attempts to focus on the basics of the Christian faith are especially important in an age when the Church of Jesus Christ is in transition. The Church of Jesus Christ is evolving from understandings and practice of the faith that belongs to previous cultural, social and religious eras, to ones that lead us headlong into new articulations of the faith's core values and faithful practices. These new understandings and articulations are actually more of a reprise, or recovery, of ancient understandings and practices. The evolutionary step leads us back to a time before institutionalized Jesus and orthodox Christ. In that brief age, those who followed in the "way of Christ" understood themselves as Christ's incarnation, as his representatives, as his embodiment in the world. Before 90 c.e., and maybe even before 70, followers of Christ Jesus saw themselves as a community called to do what he did, to sacrifice themselves for the sake of social, religious and cultural justice. They did less believing and more doing. They listened to fewer sermons than they performed. They were active participants in the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.
In our current cultural, social and religious evolution, we are moving toward this pre-institutional age of Christian witness and action. We are moving away from doctrine and orthodoxy, away from exclusionary and judgmental policies and procedures, toward inclusion, empowerment, call and acceptance. No matter how desperately some factions of Church and politics try to pull the culture backward, away from this pre-institutional age of Christian witness, the culture will evolve. It will move forward. It will be deterred only momentarily on its inevitable course toward full realization.
I have told the story many times. A coach, on the first day of college basketball practice, has the team simply dribble for three hours. The team members dribbled with their right hands, then their lefts. They dribbled behind their backs and between their legs. They dribbled in straight lines and around pylons. They worked on body positions and hand positions. They dribbled with someone in front of them, behind them and all around them. All morning, the team just dribbled. And this was college! Finally, the coach sat the team in the bleachers and asked them why, did they think, they just spent three hours dribbling. After a few snarky comments, the coach told the team that they spent all this time on dribbling because ball handling was the basic activity of the game and, if they controlled the ball, then they controlled the game.
The allegory works until one realizes that, given the evolutionary strides into which the Church of Jesus Christ is being called, we are trying to dribble footballs. It is time to rethink the game, my friends, because we are playing with an entirely new set of rules. Let's use the season of Lent to focus on some of the new fundamentals.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Coexistence at Laodicea
Anyone who knows me, has ever taken a class from me, whether at Shiloh Church, University of Dayton's Life-Long Learning Institute, or through Shiloh's Bible @ Boston's program, likely knows that I have a life-long affinity for archeology. If you know me well, you likely know that my favorite publication is the Biblical Archaeology Review, edited by Hershel Shanks. You also likely know that I firmly believe that the revelations of ancient times can help us better understand the world we live in today.
A point in that case is timely and important, I think. In the most recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Mark R. Fairchild offered a meaningful and exciting article, entitled, "Laodicea's 'Lukewarm' Legacy: Conflicts of Prosperity in an Ancient Christian City". In the article, Fairchild makes clear that Laodicea's history, while something of a remaining mystery, is an indication that, at least at times in the city's history, Christians and Jews shared space and, perhaps, time. The implications are drawn from relics that have been discovered during excavations of ancient Laodicea. Most telling of those discoveries is an ancient column, now broken, that depicts four symbols. Those symbols were a Jewish shofar, or ram's horn, a menorah, and an olive branch, which can be representative of both Judaism and Christianity. The fourth etching was a large Christian cross. The Jewish symbols were carved before the Christian images, but the Christian images were added to, instead of covering over, the Jewish ones.
The fact that both Jewsih and Christian symbols appeared together on ancient finds is important. The author suggests that the presence of both religions' symbols means that those faiths likely took place in the community side-by-side, likely in the same spaces and perhaps even at the same time. This suggestion reflects something that we have long suspected of the early pre-Christian and Christian periods. We have suspected that the Christian movement grew out of the Jewish synagogue and, at least for a time, lived fairly amicably side-by-side. The important point of the carvings is that neither symbol or faith is demonstrated at superior to the other. The presence of the unified symbols shows that they were contemporarily respected and honored images.
Which brings me to the age in which we live. We heard, just yesterday, of the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in Missouri, where hundreds of tomb stones were thrown over, displaced and broken. At this time, before the video cameras are investigated, there is no suspect and no claim of responsibility.
I suspect that the accommodation of developing Christianity in the synagogues of ancient Judaism likely lasted until the institutionalization period of Christian development, beginning after 70 c.e. The separation picked up steam, of course, at the Council of Jamnia, in 90 c.e., when the Hebrew canon list was further established by the exclusion of "Christian" elements. This event signaled an institutional break between the two faiths.
Since then, there has been varying degrees of open conflict, sometimes subtle anti-semitism, outright violence, mistrust and competition that is meant to prove that one side or the other is more faithful as God's favorite. If the carvings at Laodicea teach us anything it is that Christians and Jews can live, worship and thrive alongside one another. We can live in unity, sharing time and space in such a way that both faiths, and all of the human race, benefit. We can, if we will, return to a state of honoring each other's sacred symbols, holy places and important images. There is no room in that relationship, and it is of no benefit to humankind, to desecrate graves, destroy images, or harm people.
Learn the lessons of the past, my friends, and coexist. It is of benefit to all people!
A point in that case is timely and important, I think. In the most recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Mark R. Fairchild offered a meaningful and exciting article, entitled, "Laodicea's 'Lukewarm' Legacy: Conflicts of Prosperity in an Ancient Christian City". In the article, Fairchild makes clear that Laodicea's history, while something of a remaining mystery, is an indication that, at least at times in the city's history, Christians and Jews shared space and, perhaps, time. The implications are drawn from relics that have been discovered during excavations of ancient Laodicea. Most telling of those discoveries is an ancient column, now broken, that depicts four symbols. Those symbols were a Jewish shofar, or ram's horn, a menorah, and an olive branch, which can be representative of both Judaism and Christianity. The fourth etching was a large Christian cross. The Jewish symbols were carved before the Christian images, but the Christian images were added to, instead of covering over, the Jewish ones.
The fact that both Jewsih and Christian symbols appeared together on ancient finds is important. The author suggests that the presence of both religions' symbols means that those faiths likely took place in the community side-by-side, likely in the same spaces and perhaps even at the same time. This suggestion reflects something that we have long suspected of the early pre-Christian and Christian periods. We have suspected that the Christian movement grew out of the Jewish synagogue and, at least for a time, lived fairly amicably side-by-side. The important point of the carvings is that neither symbol or faith is demonstrated at superior to the other. The presence of the unified symbols shows that they were contemporarily respected and honored images.
Which brings me to the age in which we live. We heard, just yesterday, of the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in Missouri, where hundreds of tomb stones were thrown over, displaced and broken. At this time, before the video cameras are investigated, there is no suspect and no claim of responsibility.
I suspect that the accommodation of developing Christianity in the synagogues of ancient Judaism likely lasted until the institutionalization period of Christian development, beginning after 70 c.e. The separation picked up steam, of course, at the Council of Jamnia, in 90 c.e., when the Hebrew canon list was further established by the exclusion of "Christian" elements. This event signaled an institutional break between the two faiths.
Since then, there has been varying degrees of open conflict, sometimes subtle anti-semitism, outright violence, mistrust and competition that is meant to prove that one side or the other is more faithful as God's favorite. If the carvings at Laodicea teach us anything it is that Christians and Jews can live, worship and thrive alongside one another. We can live in unity, sharing time and space in such a way that both faiths, and all of the human race, benefit. We can, if we will, return to a state of honoring each other's sacred symbols, holy places and important images. There is no room in that relationship, and it is of no benefit to humankind, to desecrate graves, destroy images, or harm people.
Learn the lessons of the past, my friends, and coexist. It is of benefit to all people!
Monday, February 13, 2017
Sermon on the Mount Applied
Jesus stood above his followers on a small rise in the terrain, in order that he could be seen and heard, and taught them the most radical of things. He challenged them to think through for themselves just how to live out the ethical archetype that he promoted, that which we will come to call the "Christ Ethic." Much of what Jesus said flew directly in the face of traditions in which the majority of his followers were raised. How dare he speak it? And how dare they listen? More importantly, how dare they undo centuries of tradition and follow him?
The "Sermon on the Mount" is earth-shattering and foundation-shaking. It is completely and utterly "other." It is nothing that anyone of Jesus' time would have been used to. It questions the authority of scripture and the trust that humanity had placed in the traditional teachings of God's law. It says, basically, "Do not rely on what you have been taught. It may not be the most faithful response to following God's will. Instead, do this..." The Sermon on the Mount marks a shift in perspective without which Jesus ministry cannot be understood or embraced.
The Sermon on the Mount remains, even today, a radical statement of the faith that follows Jesus, his actions and his teachings. Who can think of the actual teachings and practices of Jesus without hearing and experiencing "love your enemies," "you have heard that it was written, but I say unto you..." and "when you speak evil against another, you do the other damage?"
If Facebook posts are any indication, otherwise good Christian men, women and children have completely missed the point of a key teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. Many have missed the cornerstone of Jesus' teachings. Folks, it is not okay for people to label others, refer to them by some critical epithet, and dismiss them as not worthy of our time, attention, or effort. To call names and insult is simply to dismiss, to estrange, to reject. The cornerstone of Jesus' teachings and actions is inclusion of those who are different, who believe and behave differently, who have been rejected and excluded.
It is not okay to post on Facebook, or to state in any other forum, something that dismissed certain parts of the population . It is not faithful to Christ Jesus to do so. I do not care what you read in the polemical press. I do not care that you have an opinion about politics or economies or social values. To call names and insult is not acceptable. To exclude, dismiss and reject is in no way in line with Christian values.
I therefore urge those who read The Shiloh Insider to refrain from posting things that insult, dismiss or reject others. Refuse to use language, or to take stances, that do others damage. Carefully consider the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ. Choose to refuse the bandwagon of lack of civility. Respect instead. Honor instead. Care instead. Even when you vehemently disagree, if what you are tempted to say diminishes another, choose to say nothing. When you speak and act on behalf of those who have been victimized, those who have been oppressed, excluded, rejected or dismissed, remember, please, to use language and take actions that do not damage, dismiss, reject or exclude others.
Think through what you do and say. Apply the Christ archetypical ethic in very practical ways to how you treat others.
The "Sermon on the Mount" is earth-shattering and foundation-shaking. It is completely and utterly "other." It is nothing that anyone of Jesus' time would have been used to. It questions the authority of scripture and the trust that humanity had placed in the traditional teachings of God's law. It says, basically, "Do not rely on what you have been taught. It may not be the most faithful response to following God's will. Instead, do this..." The Sermon on the Mount marks a shift in perspective without which Jesus ministry cannot be understood or embraced.
The Sermon on the Mount remains, even today, a radical statement of the faith that follows Jesus, his actions and his teachings. Who can think of the actual teachings and practices of Jesus without hearing and experiencing "love your enemies," "you have heard that it was written, but I say unto you..." and "when you speak evil against another, you do the other damage?"
If Facebook posts are any indication, otherwise good Christian men, women and children have completely missed the point of a key teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. Many have missed the cornerstone of Jesus' teachings. Folks, it is not okay for people to label others, refer to them by some critical epithet, and dismiss them as not worthy of our time, attention, or effort. To call names and insult is simply to dismiss, to estrange, to reject. The cornerstone of Jesus' teachings and actions is inclusion of those who are different, who believe and behave differently, who have been rejected and excluded.
It is not okay to post on Facebook, or to state in any other forum, something that dismissed certain parts of the population . It is not faithful to Christ Jesus to do so. I do not care what you read in the polemical press. I do not care that you have an opinion about politics or economies or social values. To call names and insult is not acceptable. To exclude, dismiss and reject is in no way in line with Christian values.
I therefore urge those who read The Shiloh Insider to refrain from posting things that insult, dismiss or reject others. Refuse to use language, or to take stances, that do others damage. Carefully consider the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ. Choose to refuse the bandwagon of lack of civility. Respect instead. Honor instead. Care instead. Even when you vehemently disagree, if what you are tempted to say diminishes another, choose to say nothing. When you speak and act on behalf of those who have been victimized, those who have been oppressed, excluded, rejected or dismissed, remember, please, to use language and take actions that do not damage, dismiss, reject or exclude others.
Think through what you do and say. Apply the Christ archetypical ethic in very practical ways to how you treat others.
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
News
Can you remember with me when news was news? Do you recall when we believed at the end of a Walter Cronkite evening news report when he would habitually say, "And that's the way it was..." My favorite news tag line, by the way, was Linda Ellerbee saying, "And so it goes..."
Perhaps news was as polemical then as it is now. Maybe network were just as concerned with ratings, popularity, and the celebrity of its anchors. Maybe those were just more innocent times, when we believed what we were told and trusted the reporting as an ethical and honest depicting of what actually happened.
Something has happened to news and its sources. Somewhere along the line, the sensationalism of a story, or the opportunity to attack certain values, opinions or world-views has replaced factual recitation of the day's events. Perhaps there is simply too much news. In the competitive market, the more polemically a tale can be told, the more it appeals to this faction or that. Advertisers are so sophisticated that ads for items are placed within polemical environments, targeted audiences and demographic categories. News has become factionalized. It is compartmentalized, targeted, sectarian.
I noticed it first, of course, with news sources that disagreed with my own opinions and values. "They" were slanting their news toward a certain perspective. It was later that I began to realize that the news sources upon whom I relied for information were doing the same thing. "We" were doing exactly what I accused "them" of doing. Once able to make that admission, I could face honestly the nature of contemporary entertainment newstelling.
How does one get at the truth of anything in such a slanted news environment? It is not easy. It is not comfortable. It may, at times, not even be possible. But here are a few simple guidelines that I follow:
Trust No One: Do not follow a particular telling of the news as if its content and context were the absolute truth of the thing itself. No telling of the news takes place in a vacuum. Everything you read, hear or watch is slanted in some subtle way or another. (Like scripture, all news is contextual.)
Read, Watch, Learn Widely: Because no single source is to be trusted with the truth of any single thing, turn to multiple sources, including those with whom you disagree. Read incessantly and watch reports from varied outlets. Become cosmopolitan in your newsgathering. (Like scripture, there is no single truth.)
Get Near Originals: Get as close as you can to original reporting. Almost every news outlet sites sources for their stories. Go back to those sources, if you are able, to see what was originally said. Many times, the slant placed on the news lies in the difference between what was originally reported, and that said about the original story. (Like scripture, news is filtered.)
Keep an Open Mind: Do not decide too quickly what a particular news item means. Take the time and make the effort to analyze for yourself the impact of any story, fact or occurrence. Think creatively and honestly about what you hear or see. Do not allow any news source to do the analysis for you. (Like scripture, news can constantly surprise us.)
Adopt a Wide Scope of Interest: News reporting relies increasingly on narrow viewpoints and make up minds. The telling caters to what sources believe people want to hear and see. Break out of that categorization to a wider worldview. Refuse to be pigeon-holed. Demand more eclectic information. As always, those who want to make certain people happy will tell them what they want to hear and show them what they want to see. Do not fall for it. (Like scripture, a wider worldview informs instead of challenges.)
Finally, embrace an ethical standard through which you determine whether or not a certain news story is of value, of what value, and what to do, think or say about it. Mine is the ethical archetype that is established in the life, ministry, Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus. I run everything through the sieve of the standard of sacrifice for others and the universal benefit of life lived according to that ethical archetype. This is my tool for analyzing news and its reporting. You do not have to embrace it or adopt it. You are free to establish your own. I just find this one a faithful response to my calling and my understanding of being Christian.
Perhaps news was as polemical then as it is now. Maybe network were just as concerned with ratings, popularity, and the celebrity of its anchors. Maybe those were just more innocent times, when we believed what we were told and trusted the reporting as an ethical and honest depicting of what actually happened.
Something has happened to news and its sources. Somewhere along the line, the sensationalism of a story, or the opportunity to attack certain values, opinions or world-views has replaced factual recitation of the day's events. Perhaps there is simply too much news. In the competitive market, the more polemically a tale can be told, the more it appeals to this faction or that. Advertisers are so sophisticated that ads for items are placed within polemical environments, targeted audiences and demographic categories. News has become factionalized. It is compartmentalized, targeted, sectarian.
I noticed it first, of course, with news sources that disagreed with my own opinions and values. "They" were slanting their news toward a certain perspective. It was later that I began to realize that the news sources upon whom I relied for information were doing the same thing. "We" were doing exactly what I accused "them" of doing. Once able to make that admission, I could face honestly the nature of contemporary entertainment newstelling.
How does one get at the truth of anything in such a slanted news environment? It is not easy. It is not comfortable. It may, at times, not even be possible. But here are a few simple guidelines that I follow:
Trust No One: Do not follow a particular telling of the news as if its content and context were the absolute truth of the thing itself. No telling of the news takes place in a vacuum. Everything you read, hear or watch is slanted in some subtle way or another. (Like scripture, all news is contextual.)
Read, Watch, Learn Widely: Because no single source is to be trusted with the truth of any single thing, turn to multiple sources, including those with whom you disagree. Read incessantly and watch reports from varied outlets. Become cosmopolitan in your newsgathering. (Like scripture, there is no single truth.)
Get Near Originals: Get as close as you can to original reporting. Almost every news outlet sites sources for their stories. Go back to those sources, if you are able, to see what was originally said. Many times, the slant placed on the news lies in the difference between what was originally reported, and that said about the original story. (Like scripture, news is filtered.)
Keep an Open Mind: Do not decide too quickly what a particular news item means. Take the time and make the effort to analyze for yourself the impact of any story, fact or occurrence. Think creatively and honestly about what you hear or see. Do not allow any news source to do the analysis for you. (Like scripture, news can constantly surprise us.)
Adopt a Wide Scope of Interest: News reporting relies increasingly on narrow viewpoints and make up minds. The telling caters to what sources believe people want to hear and see. Break out of that categorization to a wider worldview. Refuse to be pigeon-holed. Demand more eclectic information. As always, those who want to make certain people happy will tell them what they want to hear and show them what they want to see. Do not fall for it. (Like scripture, a wider worldview informs instead of challenges.)
Finally, embrace an ethical standard through which you determine whether or not a certain news story is of value, of what value, and what to do, think or say about it. Mine is the ethical archetype that is established in the life, ministry, Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus. I run everything through the sieve of the standard of sacrifice for others and the universal benefit of life lived according to that ethical archetype. This is my tool for analyzing news and its reporting. You do not have to embrace it or adopt it. You are free to establish your own. I just find this one a faithful response to my calling and my understanding of being Christian.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Evolutionary Braking System
See if this resonates with anybody.
Students of history, of whatever discipline, have discerned a pattern of major cultural shifts that have taken place in human history roughly every 500 years. The shifts have been so meaningful in character that they have resulted, through time, in axiomatic shifts within every human discipline. There has been no corner of human endeavor unaffected by the cultural evolutionary process. The evolutionary process has been undeniable and inevitable, despite the best efforts of those who would rather it not be the case.
If we are correct in assessing those major cultural shifts, the last took place in the 15th and 16th centuries and is characterized in the religious realm by the Great Reformation. Now, 500 years later, we find ourselves in a similarly discernible phase of cultural evolution. The difference lies in our ability to recognize the cultural shift for what it is. One would think that we would cope with it far better than have past generations. But, no.
Each of these 500-year phases in cultural evolution has been characterized by a rough transitional period, lasting some 100 years, which we may understand as a battle between the old and the new cultural identities. Therefore, the age of tension in which we find ourselves these days is nothing new. It has happened every 500 years. If we are correct that the transitional phases take about a century, there is both good and bad news. The bad news is that we are only about halfway through that transitional phase. The good news is that we are halfway through that transitional phase.
There will be a Hegelian synthesis formed, as a modulation between the two extremes of what the culture had been and what it is becoming. That synthesis takes place as both extremes express themselves, often as reducto ad absurdum, and we see that neither is practical or practicable. To state the case more concretely, it is likely that the culture is moving in paths of unity, acceptance of diversity, tolerance and a continual blurring of cultural, racial, economic, gender, and political boundaries. Divisiveness is disappearing. Segregation is diminishing. Separation of kinds, types, clans and ilks is becoming antiquated, both as notion and practice. There will be forces that seek to articulate the divisiveness, segregationist, protectionist, fearful stance of previous cultural articulations. They will be powerful forces that seek to pull us back from the brink of cultural evolution. There will also be powerful forces that work for unity, peace, justice for all persons, equality and tolerance. Our culture will tend to shift from one cultural footing to the other, until we reach some synthesis of the two opposing positions.
The pendulum of cultural expression is swinging. American culture has just said that it fears the direction, and the pace, at which we are moving toward the inevitable cultural evolution. We pulled back. No judgment here, of course. Serious students of history would have expected just such a cultural response. It is natural and rational. It is doomed to failure, however. No statement of cultural opposition, whether religious, political, economic, social or military, can keep culture from evolving. It will move on. As certainly as we will see cultural opposition, we will certainly see cultural progress. While those who would put on the brakes of cultural evolution may do significant damage, do not fear, culture will evolve. In the meantime, perhaps we can work for those who are harmed by the pendulum swing.
Students of history, of whatever discipline, have discerned a pattern of major cultural shifts that have taken place in human history roughly every 500 years. The shifts have been so meaningful in character that they have resulted, through time, in axiomatic shifts within every human discipline. There has been no corner of human endeavor unaffected by the cultural evolutionary process. The evolutionary process has been undeniable and inevitable, despite the best efforts of those who would rather it not be the case.
If we are correct in assessing those major cultural shifts, the last took place in the 15th and 16th centuries and is characterized in the religious realm by the Great Reformation. Now, 500 years later, we find ourselves in a similarly discernible phase of cultural evolution. The difference lies in our ability to recognize the cultural shift for what it is. One would think that we would cope with it far better than have past generations. But, no.
Each of these 500-year phases in cultural evolution has been characterized by a rough transitional period, lasting some 100 years, which we may understand as a battle between the old and the new cultural identities. Therefore, the age of tension in which we find ourselves these days is nothing new. It has happened every 500 years. If we are correct that the transitional phases take about a century, there is both good and bad news. The bad news is that we are only about halfway through that transitional phase. The good news is that we are halfway through that transitional phase.
There will be a Hegelian synthesis formed, as a modulation between the two extremes of what the culture had been and what it is becoming. That synthesis takes place as both extremes express themselves, often as reducto ad absurdum, and we see that neither is practical or practicable. To state the case more concretely, it is likely that the culture is moving in paths of unity, acceptance of diversity, tolerance and a continual blurring of cultural, racial, economic, gender, and political boundaries. Divisiveness is disappearing. Segregation is diminishing. Separation of kinds, types, clans and ilks is becoming antiquated, both as notion and practice. There will be forces that seek to articulate the divisiveness, segregationist, protectionist, fearful stance of previous cultural articulations. They will be powerful forces that seek to pull us back from the brink of cultural evolution. There will also be powerful forces that work for unity, peace, justice for all persons, equality and tolerance. Our culture will tend to shift from one cultural footing to the other, until we reach some synthesis of the two opposing positions.
The pendulum of cultural expression is swinging. American culture has just said that it fears the direction, and the pace, at which we are moving toward the inevitable cultural evolution. We pulled back. No judgment here, of course. Serious students of history would have expected just such a cultural response. It is natural and rational. It is doomed to failure, however. No statement of cultural opposition, whether religious, political, economic, social or military, can keep culture from evolving. It will move on. As certainly as we will see cultural opposition, we will certainly see cultural progress. While those who would put on the brakes of cultural evolution may do significant damage, do not fear, culture will evolve. In the meantime, perhaps we can work for those who are harmed by the pendulum swing.
Tuesday, January 03, 2017
New Year Resolutions
The new year is prime occasion to start something. Many of us make resolutions. I have read many: Lose weight; Exercise regularly; Be more at peace with myself; Follow my dreams; Focus on my needs; Learn a language; Go back to school; Get a hobby; Win the lottery; Get a new job. Do not misunderstand, please. There is nothing wrong with improving one's self, educating one's self, finding a place of peace in this chaotic life. Each resolution is good, in and of itself.
There is something missing here, however. So I want to propose a different kind of resolution for 2017, one that focuses beyond self-improvement. Do those things too, of course, but don't do only those. What I suggest is a resolution that is beyond one's self, one that focuses our attention, time and energy on the needs of those around us. I call it the "selfless" resolution.
Here is the resolution: In 2017, I resolve myself to do one random act of generosity and kindness per day, without expectation of return, reward. recognition or appreciation.
The first half of the resolution is tough. One act of kindness or generosity per day is going to cost me time, energy, attention and, more than likely, even money. I am going to have to go out of my way to attend to those around me, particularly as I search for an act of kindness and generosity. As I look for opportunities to practice kindness and generosity, I am going to have to listen and look. I will be forced to attend to the needs of those around me. I will have to pay attention to others.
The second half of the resolution is even tougher. These acts of kindness or generosity are to be practiced without expectation of thanks, reward or recognition. There is a purity here that I do not want people to miss. So often, we engage in behaviors in hopes of winning some recognition or reward. Doing so means that we engage in those acts for ourselves. They are not genuinely focused on doing for anyone else. If, however, we are to engage in acts of kindness or generosity without such expectation, those acts spring from our sincere attempt to simply meet someone else's need.
Here is what I anticipate as an outcome of my 2017 selfless resolution. I anticipate a freedom from my own aches and pains. I anticipate a decrease in complaint about the ways of the world, which seem always to work against me. I anticipate freedom from depression and anxiety, which spring from a concentration on one's self. I must make clear, though, that I am not practicing my 2017 selfless resolution in order to get these things. It is simply that a focus on the needs of others diminishes attention to myself, my problems, my tension, my stress, my fear and my anxiety.
If you genuinely want 2017 to be a better year, I recommend a selfless resolution. Try it for a year. See if it does not translate into happier, healthier, more fulfilling relationships. See if it does not make better selves in the long run. See if it does not make us more like Christ, which, I believe, is core to the practice of the Christian faith.
Happy New Year!
There is something missing here, however. So I want to propose a different kind of resolution for 2017, one that focuses beyond self-improvement. Do those things too, of course, but don't do only those. What I suggest is a resolution that is beyond one's self, one that focuses our attention, time and energy on the needs of those around us. I call it the "selfless" resolution.
Here is the resolution: In 2017, I resolve myself to do one random act of generosity and kindness per day, without expectation of return, reward. recognition or appreciation.
The first half of the resolution is tough. One act of kindness or generosity per day is going to cost me time, energy, attention and, more than likely, even money. I am going to have to go out of my way to attend to those around me, particularly as I search for an act of kindness and generosity. As I look for opportunities to practice kindness and generosity, I am going to have to listen and look. I will be forced to attend to the needs of those around me. I will have to pay attention to others.
The second half of the resolution is even tougher. These acts of kindness or generosity are to be practiced without expectation of thanks, reward or recognition. There is a purity here that I do not want people to miss. So often, we engage in behaviors in hopes of winning some recognition or reward. Doing so means that we engage in those acts for ourselves. They are not genuinely focused on doing for anyone else. If, however, we are to engage in acts of kindness or generosity without such expectation, those acts spring from our sincere attempt to simply meet someone else's need.
Here is what I anticipate as an outcome of my 2017 selfless resolution. I anticipate a freedom from my own aches and pains. I anticipate a decrease in complaint about the ways of the world, which seem always to work against me. I anticipate freedom from depression and anxiety, which spring from a concentration on one's self. I must make clear, though, that I am not practicing my 2017 selfless resolution in order to get these things. It is simply that a focus on the needs of others diminishes attention to myself, my problems, my tension, my stress, my fear and my anxiety.
If you genuinely want 2017 to be a better year, I recommend a selfless resolution. Try it for a year. See if it does not translate into happier, healthier, more fulfilling relationships. See if it does not make better selves in the long run. See if it does not make us more like Christ, which, I believe, is core to the practice of the Christian faith.
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)