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!
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)