Welcome to Lent.
Lent is a season of 40 days, excluding Sundays, throughout which Christians around the world mark Jesus' journey from Galilee to his Crucifixion and Resurrection in Jerusalem. It is a season of penitence and serious elf-assessment, beginning on Ash Wednesday, when we focus on the power of human sinfulness, and ending on Holy Saturday, with Jesus dead in a borrowed tomb. It is the story of both a failed revolutionary movement and the success of spiritual liberation from the twin powers of sin and death.
Why are Sundays not counted in the season of Lent? I am glad that you asked.
In the Christian world, Sunday is Resurrection Day, a celebration of new life and a recognition of the vitality that God works even when situations seems hopeless and impossible. It is a day of work. It is not Sabbath. Sabbath, a day of rest that takes place on the seventh day, is Saturday. Sunday, the first day of the new week, is a day of new possibilities and spiritual potential now turned into kinetic energies in and through the Church that bears Jesus' name. One cannot both celebrate the new, resurrected life in Christ with a journey to the Cross of his sacrifice. Therefore, Sundays are not counted within the season of Lent.
For those of you who are engaging in the spiritual discipline of giving up something for the season, you are correct in not counting Sundays. However, for the sake of going the second mile in your discipline, those of you who gave up something may wish to extend your discipline to Sundays as well. I have chosen to do so this year, as I have done in the past.
Why is Lent such a bummer? Goodness, you are just full of good questions today!
Walking to a Cross is never celebrated. The Roman practice of Crucifixion was the height of humiliation and deterrence. It was not just punishment for crimes against the empire. Much more than that, Crucifixion was an intentional sign for all who might be led to practice sedition against Roman Rule. Persons who actually attempted revolt against the Romans were arrested, publicly flogged, derided and debased, normally marched naked through the streets and nailed to huge wooden beams that were hoisted high into the air, overlooking the city, in order to deter any other potential revolutionary. The death was slow and agonizing. The cause of death was normally asphyxiation, after reaching a point at which the physical body could no longer support itself and the torso collapsed in on the lungs and diaphragm. It normally took days for death to release prisoners from their suffering.
Even after death, Crucifixion continued. Dead bodies were left on crosses, hoisted high above the cities, for all to witness the punishment that results from attempted revolt. The bodies remained for days, weeks or months, until they literally rotted from their posts. The bodies were not collected by families or friends, but fell to the ground below, where they were consumed by wild animals and continued to decompose. Piles on bones mounted on the grounds that surrounded the place of Crucifixion as ongoing symbols of Roman power and the fate that met all who may attempt overthrow.
Crucifixion is ugly and gruesome. It is the worst sort of public punishment and humiliation. In Lent, we walk with Jesus toward his intentional, purposeful embrace of Crucifixion. Perhaps Jesus assumed that the poor for whom he was willing to suffer and die would arise in revolt at such a sight as their Messiah being hoisted above the city of Jerusalem. They did not, however. Even his closest followers deserted him. Only his mother and Mary Magdalene and some other women remained. Only they saw it all.
Lent is a season of asking where in the story might we betray him. Where might we flee into the welcoming arms of life-as-normal and away from the self-sacrifice of Christ? Where do we find ourselves in collusion with the ways of world and align ourselves against him, shouting with the crowds to "Crucify him! Crucify him?" Where do we find ourselves denying knowledge of or allegiance with him? Where do we run away from him, escaping our own sacrifice?
Lent is not a happy or joyous walk, but a necessary one. In order to genuinely embrace the celebrations of Easter, we must first walk, heads bowed down, to and through the streets of Jerusalem, naked and humiliated, facing the most painful of all deaths. For out of that sacrifice comes new life, a resurrection hope, a vision of a new world for every person in every place.
So, we walk with him.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Power of Negativity
I left the new Association Ministry Council meeting Saturday feeling very good about the direction of the program in southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky. I call it new because it is part of the new structure of the Association, wherein we have separated the governance of the Association from its ministry to, with and for our local churches. The Ministry Council is made up of targeted ministries, at least in this point of its configuration. There are groups for education, local church ministries, spiritual development, communication, technology, and a few others that do not immediately occur to me.
It was a very productive meeting, in which we planned the Spring Association Meeting, scheduled for April 25, at Flemming Road UCC, in Cincinnati. The topic will be ministry to and with people who are on the fringes, those who suffer from mental health issues, addictions, relationship transitions, or anything else that has been stigmatized in church settings. The Ministry Council sees ministry to and with persons who exist on the fringes, or at least at the outer most extent of the church's periphery includes, at one time or another, almost each of us. The day will conclude with a unique labyrinth station worship experience, one that is sure to make a powerful impact on all who dare participate.
I was enthused. These were high level theological and ministerial conversations, an important sign that the Association is now moving in an important and meaningful direction.
When I got home, I posted on Facebook, to the SONKA group there, that it had been a fine meeting and that I was thrilled with the spirit that is moving in SONKA. I meant the comment to be a positive witness to the ministry and direction of what I take to be a very important component of church life. Within minutes, however, some of my colleagues began to complain that they wanted information about the new structure, about what was going on, and about who was serving in what role. I felt as though I was being attacked simply for making a positive statement about a meeting.
Almost immediately, my enthusiasm drained. My hopes for the immediate future of the Association waned and my willingness to make such witness again disappeared. If making positive comment leads to attack, then why in the world would I, or anyone else for that matter, bother to offer any? I was deflated.
How often do what we say and how we respond to those around us have just that effect? How often do the negative comments that we make, or even what we intend as suggestion, deflate the spirit of those who make positive comment? I take this incident as a call to be even more mindful about the impact we make when we respond to those around us, perhaps especially through social media. I do not believe that my colleagues intended to drain my enthusiasm. I do not think that they meant to criticize my comment. But the outcome of what they said and how they said did just that.
I will be reluctant to post such a comment again to the SONKA group, knowing that it had been a negative experience. If my comments have ever done such a thing to any of you, I sincerely apologize. Please know that I will be more mindful in the future.
It was a very productive meeting, in which we planned the Spring Association Meeting, scheduled for April 25, at Flemming Road UCC, in Cincinnati. The topic will be ministry to and with people who are on the fringes, those who suffer from mental health issues, addictions, relationship transitions, or anything else that has been stigmatized in church settings. The Ministry Council sees ministry to and with persons who exist on the fringes, or at least at the outer most extent of the church's periphery includes, at one time or another, almost each of us. The day will conclude with a unique labyrinth station worship experience, one that is sure to make a powerful impact on all who dare participate.
I was enthused. These were high level theological and ministerial conversations, an important sign that the Association is now moving in an important and meaningful direction.
When I got home, I posted on Facebook, to the SONKA group there, that it had been a fine meeting and that I was thrilled with the spirit that is moving in SONKA. I meant the comment to be a positive witness to the ministry and direction of what I take to be a very important component of church life. Within minutes, however, some of my colleagues began to complain that they wanted information about the new structure, about what was going on, and about who was serving in what role. I felt as though I was being attacked simply for making a positive statement about a meeting.
Almost immediately, my enthusiasm drained. My hopes for the immediate future of the Association waned and my willingness to make such witness again disappeared. If making positive comment leads to attack, then why in the world would I, or anyone else for that matter, bother to offer any? I was deflated.
How often do what we say and how we respond to those around us have just that effect? How often do the negative comments that we make, or even what we intend as suggestion, deflate the spirit of those who make positive comment? I take this incident as a call to be even more mindful about the impact we make when we respond to those around us, perhaps especially through social media. I do not believe that my colleagues intended to drain my enthusiasm. I do not think that they meant to criticize my comment. But the outcome of what they said and how they said did just that.
I will be reluctant to post such a comment again to the SONKA group, knowing that it had been a negative experience. If my comments have ever done such a thing to any of you, I sincerely apologize. Please know that I will be more mindful in the future.
Monday, February 09, 2015
The Line Between
There is a line that lies somewhere between being funny and being hurtful. More appropriately stated, there is a difference between humor and injury, and there are times when both speakers and hearers blur that distinction.
You are familiar with the situation. Someone rambles on, thinking that they are being funny and endearing, when, in actuality that persons is being nothing but tedious and annoying. Worse, such attempts at humor can be made at the expense of others.They become hurtful and insulting.
There have been times when most of us have been guilty of such unfortunate behavior, usually after a drink or two too many. It is also likely the case that most of us have been on the receiving end of such abuse, and likely bear some resentment for it.
I am reminded of Paul's dealing with the church in Corinth. They had been nothing but a problem for Paul. Conflict was constantly at hand, especially with the apparent divisiveness of many in the small community of faith. Some within the congregation were always looking for ways to exclude some others, to say who could be in or out, depending upon one's behavior. Some within the group wanted to state their superiority over others, a tendency borrowed from the competitive world in which they lived. The argued about food that had been sacrificed to idols, the hierarchy of spiritual gifts, who could and could not take what elements of the sacrament, and what to do with the influence of paganism in the lives of some, or many, within the church.
Paul was a master apostle. In his answer to these, and other, questions, he always applied the same standard of action and decision-making. Paul constantly utilized the archetype of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection as a model for faithful behavior and thinking. This archetype suggests that all action and decision-making can be determined on the grounds of self-sacrifice and the benefit of others. For instance, while we know that eating food that had been sacrificed to an idol neither helps us not hurts us, the determining factor has little to do with us. It has to do with others. If a person who is weak in faith sees a strong person in the faith consuming food that had been sacrificed to an idol, may the strong not lead the weak into what the weaker person takes to be homage to another god? Therefore, for the sake of those weaker in the faith, it is probably better that we refrain.
Paul always applies the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection. How might we apply it to the thin line that separates humor from injury, fun from hurtfulness? Saying things that harm others is unacceptable. If we focus on Christ, then our intent in speaking must be to lift others, to make them feel better about themselves, to allow others to focus on their giftedness, empowerment and capability. We must refuse to speak in ways that invite others to focus on their weaknesses, flaws, limitations or wrongdoings. We must refuse to use our speech to tear others down, to make them self-conscious, to get them to look at things that may keep them from being faithful. If the archetype of our speaking were the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ Jesus then we would refuse to hurt and seek at all times to help.
Alas, our speech is not always so pure. It does not always, or even often, focus on building up others. We have grown accustomed to using speech that harms and hurts, that criticizes and deflates. All too often, our speech is used as a weapon against others, making them feel terribly while it falsely builds up the critic, providing, in one's own mind, a comparative advantage (like the food that had been offered to an idol).
In those moments, those who are insulted are also invited to apply the archetype of Crucifixion and Resurrection. It is a weak psyche that needs constantly to tear others down. It can be understood as a character flaw, born of low self-esteem and a tragically wounded ego.If we were to "walk a mile in the critic's moccasins," then perhaps we might better understand the context of his or her hurtful words and actions. Many times, hurtful speech is unintentional. While the intention does not excuse the effect, perhaps those injured might do well simply to let the speaker know that such language is harmful and to hope with that person that he or she not hurt others with that kind of speech. In most situations, that is all that we need to do. The Crucifixion and Resurrection so applied leads to healing, better intent, forgiveness and redemption.
Sometimes, however, people find it funny to continually tear down others. They constantly choose to be destructive. Stop listening to them. Walk away. Refuse to put yourself in such a situation, and work to help others avoid poison personalities as well. There is a line between fun and humor, between humor and injury. If someone crosses the line constantly in an effort to be funny, help them understand. If they can't or won't walk away.
You are familiar with the situation. Someone rambles on, thinking that they are being funny and endearing, when, in actuality that persons is being nothing but tedious and annoying. Worse, such attempts at humor can be made at the expense of others.They become hurtful and insulting.
There have been times when most of us have been guilty of such unfortunate behavior, usually after a drink or two too many. It is also likely the case that most of us have been on the receiving end of such abuse, and likely bear some resentment for it.
I am reminded of Paul's dealing with the church in Corinth. They had been nothing but a problem for Paul. Conflict was constantly at hand, especially with the apparent divisiveness of many in the small community of faith. Some within the congregation were always looking for ways to exclude some others, to say who could be in or out, depending upon one's behavior. Some within the group wanted to state their superiority over others, a tendency borrowed from the competitive world in which they lived. The argued about food that had been sacrificed to idols, the hierarchy of spiritual gifts, who could and could not take what elements of the sacrament, and what to do with the influence of paganism in the lives of some, or many, within the church.
Paul was a master apostle. In his answer to these, and other, questions, he always applied the same standard of action and decision-making. Paul constantly utilized the archetype of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection as a model for faithful behavior and thinking. This archetype suggests that all action and decision-making can be determined on the grounds of self-sacrifice and the benefit of others. For instance, while we know that eating food that had been sacrificed to an idol neither helps us not hurts us, the determining factor has little to do with us. It has to do with others. If a person who is weak in faith sees a strong person in the faith consuming food that had been sacrificed to an idol, may the strong not lead the weak into what the weaker person takes to be homage to another god? Therefore, for the sake of those weaker in the faith, it is probably better that we refrain.
Paul always applies the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection. How might we apply it to the thin line that separates humor from injury, fun from hurtfulness? Saying things that harm others is unacceptable. If we focus on Christ, then our intent in speaking must be to lift others, to make them feel better about themselves, to allow others to focus on their giftedness, empowerment and capability. We must refuse to speak in ways that invite others to focus on their weaknesses, flaws, limitations or wrongdoings. We must refuse to use our speech to tear others down, to make them self-conscious, to get them to look at things that may keep them from being faithful. If the archetype of our speaking were the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ Jesus then we would refuse to hurt and seek at all times to help.
Alas, our speech is not always so pure. It does not always, or even often, focus on building up others. We have grown accustomed to using speech that harms and hurts, that criticizes and deflates. All too often, our speech is used as a weapon against others, making them feel terribly while it falsely builds up the critic, providing, in one's own mind, a comparative advantage (like the food that had been offered to an idol).
In those moments, those who are insulted are also invited to apply the archetype of Crucifixion and Resurrection. It is a weak psyche that needs constantly to tear others down. It can be understood as a character flaw, born of low self-esteem and a tragically wounded ego.If we were to "walk a mile in the critic's moccasins," then perhaps we might better understand the context of his or her hurtful words and actions. Many times, hurtful speech is unintentional. While the intention does not excuse the effect, perhaps those injured might do well simply to let the speaker know that such language is harmful and to hope with that person that he or she not hurt others with that kind of speech. In most situations, that is all that we need to do. The Crucifixion and Resurrection so applied leads to healing, better intent, forgiveness and redemption.
Sometimes, however, people find it funny to continually tear down others. They constantly choose to be destructive. Stop listening to them. Walk away. Refuse to put yourself in such a situation, and work to help others avoid poison personalities as well. There is a line between fun and humor, between humor and injury. If someone crosses the line constantly in an effort to be funny, help them understand. If they can't or won't walk away.
Monday, February 02, 2015
Not "Conservative"
A few weeks back, I made a comment during a Sunday morning message that insulted a member of the church. What I said was along these lines: "Such cultural evolution, and the progressive church's spiritual response, has been the bane of our right-wing conservative brothers and sisters..."
The member's point was that there are many conservatives who want to see culture evolve. They want to see thing progress. They want to see the world become a better, safer, kinder place to live.
Admittedly, this member is probably correct. Conservatives and liberals alike want to make the world a better place in which to live. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Instead of saying that cultural evolution and the progressive church's response to it are the bane of conservatives, I should have said that it is the bane of those who fear progress.
The opposite of "progressive" is not "conservative," after all. The opposite of progress is regression, repression and fear. We have seen and heard a fair share of progress' opposite in the past fifty or so years. In fact, we hear from repressive camps any time that we have experienced meaningful cultural evolution. They so fear cultural development that they seek to pull culture back into a previous configuration, beginning with their own religious culture.
The American response to a cultural evolution that began sometime in the 1960's has been to gather in regressive and repressive religious organizations. The destructive religious climate is far worse in other parts of the world, of course, where it has led to the degradation of women and children and violence enacted on any who would dare represent the cultural evolution. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a young girl who was shot in the head for daring to work for the education of young women in her culture. The opposite of progress is repression, regression, hatred and violence.
Those practices do not belong to political or cultural stances, like conservative or liberal. They are distinctly religious in nature. The enemies of cultural evolution, and of a spiritual one to which it can lead, has been decidedly religious. Religion has become the voice of repression and regression. Perhaps that is the chief reason that modern culture has rejected religious institutions in general, even while those same institutions have grown and amassed huge followings.
If the Church of Jesus Christ is to survive the current cultural evolution in which it finds itself, it will be through progressive means instead of repressive or regressive ones. How can the church become an instrument of the great things that are coming from the current contemporary cultural evolution? How can it lead to a spiritual and practical evolution in our denominations, churches and judicatories?
Next time, I will be more careful in the words that I choose. I apologize.
The member's point was that there are many conservatives who want to see culture evolve. They want to see thing progress. They want to see the world become a better, safer, kinder place to live.
Admittedly, this member is probably correct. Conservatives and liberals alike want to make the world a better place in which to live. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Instead of saying that cultural evolution and the progressive church's response to it are the bane of conservatives, I should have said that it is the bane of those who fear progress.
The opposite of "progressive" is not "conservative," after all. The opposite of progress is regression, repression and fear. We have seen and heard a fair share of progress' opposite in the past fifty or so years. In fact, we hear from repressive camps any time that we have experienced meaningful cultural evolution. They so fear cultural development that they seek to pull culture back into a previous configuration, beginning with their own religious culture.
The American response to a cultural evolution that began sometime in the 1960's has been to gather in regressive and repressive religious organizations. The destructive religious climate is far worse in other parts of the world, of course, where it has led to the degradation of women and children and violence enacted on any who would dare represent the cultural evolution. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a young girl who was shot in the head for daring to work for the education of young women in her culture. The opposite of progress is repression, regression, hatred and violence.
Those practices do not belong to political or cultural stances, like conservative or liberal. They are distinctly religious in nature. The enemies of cultural evolution, and of a spiritual one to which it can lead, has been decidedly religious. Religion has become the voice of repression and regression. Perhaps that is the chief reason that modern culture has rejected religious institutions in general, even while those same institutions have grown and amassed huge followings.
If the Church of Jesus Christ is to survive the current cultural evolution in which it finds itself, it will be through progressive means instead of repressive or regressive ones. How can the church become an instrument of the great things that are coming from the current contemporary cultural evolution? How can it lead to a spiritual and practical evolution in our denominations, churches and judicatories?
Next time, I will be more careful in the words that I choose. I apologize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)