Spirit or Scripture?

Difficult concepts occasionally occur to me. I wrestle with them, ponder them, hold them up, as an egg before a candle, and see whether or not there is life in them. One such quandary has me increasingly convinced of a troubling aspect of the Christian faith, one that, if embraced, forever changes the way we look at the Bible and its use.

Jesus did not believe in a literal application of scripture.

Throughout the liturgical church year, those who follow the Revised Common Lectionary are faced with the difficulty of Jesus rejecting that which is written in order to practice what he sees clearly as God's will. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew or the Sermon on the Plain in Luke is a fair example. Jesus says there, "You have seen that it was written," or "You have heard that it was said." He goes on to quote from Jewish Torah or the Prophets. Then, he says, "but I say to you..." Jesus' teaching counters that which is written. He contradicts the scriptures and offers a gracious response that undoes the scriptural lesson.

This week's Gospel text is another example. In Mark 7:1-8, the Pharisees, protectors of the Temple structure and the laws that uphold it, wonder why Jesus' followers eat with defiled hands. Why do they not wash, as the law requires? Jesus' response was brilliant, a quote from Isaiah: "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrine." He then applies the text: "You abandon the commandments of God and hold to human traditions."

Wait, is the command to wash not in Leviticus, and elsewhere? Is the requirement not spelled out at length in the scriptures? Of course it is, but Jesus refers to such law, rule and regulation as "human precept" and "human tradition." That the restriction is included in Torah and the prophets does not impact Jesus' belief, thinking or practice. Jesus rejects a literal application of the written scripture for a kinder, gentler practice of grace and love.

I find the concept of Jesus rejecting scripture uncomfortable and challenging. Clearly, Jesus has an alternative standard of belief, thinking and practice.He does not place his trust in a literal reading of scripture as a litmus test for faithful living. This is upsetting. It is confusing.

If Jesus placed his belief, thinking and practice on a foundational other than scriptural authority and written authority, then perhaps the Church that bears his name should find the standard upon which Jesus relied. If it is not scripture, however, where does that standard lie?

I am convinced of two things: 1. The standard for Jesus' belief, thinking and practice did not lie outside of him, but was internal and personal. and 2. That standard was spiritual instead of material, intellectual or practical. In the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus is able to do what God calls him to do precisely because he is empowered by God's own Spirit. It is this spiritual presence that renders him "God's Son, in whom God is well pleased."

Jesus trusts the Spirit that directs his actions. He is intimate with its demands and applications. To put that differently, Jesus is certain that he knows God's Spirit. It is the Spirit, internal and personal, that establishes the foundation from which Jesus acts. It, alone, is the standard of Jesus' belief, thinking and practice. The Spirit requires no external instruction or limitation. In fact, to follow external regulation or instruction limits the possibility of the Spirit-at-work.

The challenge for the Church that follows Jesus Christ, instead of laws, regulations, traditions or ritual practices and incantations, is that it must base itself in the internal and personal Spirit that empowered and enabled Christ. It is that same Spirit that empowers and enables us. It is the foundation upon which we establish standards of belief, thinking and practice. That this standard remains subjective calls us to accept the diversity of possible applications, and the diversity of persons who seek to apply them.

The religious authorities of Jesus' day sought to disavow this "spiritual" foundation for the sake of their traditional, institutional, social and political faith. The Spirit freed Jesus from the law of scripture. Perhaps it can so free the Church that follows him.      

 

Belief Barriers or Bridge Builders?

The 16th century Great Reformation promised to free the Christian world from a religion of laws, rules, regulations, orders and orthodoxies. In many ways, the Reformation served as a recovery of the theology of grace and the awakening of a powerful and innovative spirituality. It's potential was unrealized, however. Within a century of its advent, the Great Reformation backtracked into denominationalism. It divided the Protestant world. It fractured the unity of spirituality in the brokenness of minute differences in orthodoxy, rule, regulation and practice. The Great Reformation fell far short of its potential as a theological recovery and a spiritual reawakening.

Far worse, the Great Reformation resulted in a religious tradition that is marked by fractured belief and divided religious opinion. Methodists do things differently from Episcopalians. The Congregationalist do things contrary to the practice of the Presbyterians. The United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, despite being engaged in a decades-old attempt to unify, are divided by subtle, some would say silly, differences. Each argues with the other that their particular way of belief and practice is superior to the other. Since the Great Reformation, the Protestant world has been constructing belief barriers that have divided and separated what could have been unified.

If you want a review of the influences that led the Protestant world to revert to the divisiveness of belief barriers and sectarian practice, you will have to ask Reformation historians. Ask Adam Wirrig. If you want to understand the result of such division and separation, look no further than the Progressive Church alternative to Protestant denominationalism.

The Progressive Church invites us to focus less on what we believe, how we practice the Sacraments or rites of the faith, how we worship, what and how we sing, how we look at and recite ancient liturgies, how we shape upcoming generations to accept the faith as we have designed it, and to focus more on the outcomes of our belief and practice. What do we do? How do we live? How are we impacting those around us? How are we serving our communities?

Whereas belief builds barriers, focus on what we do unifies and universalizes. If the attention of the Progressive Church is drawn toward being like Christ instead of simply believing rightly in him, then it is the actions of the church-in-community that matters. Because ministry and mission is carried out in the name of Christ Jesus, and is therefore a service to every person in every place, without restriction or exception, a focus on what we do builds bridges across social, economic, political, racial, gender, age or life-style chasms.

The Progressive Church movement is building bridges instead of constructing belief barriers. Service to others crosses the divide and is not limited to how persons act, how they live, what they think, how they look, from whence they come, what religion they practice, if any, or their success, position or power in society.

Christ's servanthood is blind to divisiveness. So might ours be. But we have to drop the notion that the practice of our faith is an intellectual exercise or based in belief. It must be grounded in the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus, where we see ourselves as representatives, agents and ambassadors of his mercy, grace, love, compassion and forgiveness. When out attention is on how well we live up to Christ's standards of servanthood to all persons, regardless of what might otherwise divide us, we are faithful to him. Nothing else matters.

The question for today's congregations is whether we want to continue to construct belief barriers or if we are willing to be bridge builders. Can we allow our service to reach beyond a type, kind, class, race, gender, life-style, orthodoxy, rule, regulation or practice? Can we serve the needs around us, as Christ did, without distinction or division?

It is time that we move on from the denominationalism of the Great Reformation, with its resulting belief barriers, to an age of Christian servanthood. It is time for us to build bridges instead of constructing barriers.    

    

Why is Grace so Difficult?

As a philosophy, the theology of grace sounds wonderful. As an orthodoxy, it reads well. The problem with grace comes, as it does with almost any theology or philosophy, in its practical application. Why is grace so hard?

Grace says that all people, in every place, throughout time have received from God the gift of unconditional and universal salvation. It is freely given, without merit or condition of receipt or use. Grace is made available to everyone through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. God did the work in him. No act of commission or omission can undo what God has accomplished for us in Christ. No sin is unforgivable. No personal or communal limitation is so crippling that it bars persons from access to grace. No flaw is so deep that it discredits persons.

As part of our regular 7:00 p.m. service here at Shiloh Church, those who gather discuss the evening's message, or texts, or theological/spiritual issues that had been raised. Last night, the topic was grace. Why is it so difficult, and why does no one seem to appreciate when grace is exercised?

The group surfaced three issues. Firstly, grace sounds great until one has to put it into action with someone who does not merit our forgiveness or assistance. Secondly, grace-in-action always seems to throw us into criticism, rejection, or the charge of being "liberal." Thirdly, grace always ends up costing us more than we receive in return.

What about grace in relationship with those who do not merit it? The funny thing about grace is that none of us merit it. None of us has been so perfect, so righteous, so sinless, so near to God's will for us, that we deserve the gift of salvation. We have in no way earned it. Does right belief earn us grace? Does righteous action? Does proper orthodoxy or polite deportment? No. We have not earned the grace that we have received. Why in the world should we limit grace to those who look rightly, seem good, live well or behave politely? The radical nature of grace means that it is available to precisely those who have not worked for it.

Why does grace always seem to lead to rejection or criticism? The United Church of Christ had always been on the periphery of American religious and political life. The denomination had traditionally stood with the disenfranchised, the rejected, the challenged and the maligned. Because we have stood with those on the fringes of society, the denomination placed itself on the fringes with them. Grace is fringe-work. Its very nature draws criticism. Polite society raises a collective eyebrow at those who work on the fringes. By the way, who ever said that grace would be widely accepted or popular? Certainly, neither Jesus nor Paul ever held that silly notion. Applied grace is almost always dangerous and disruptive to status quos. It is, therefore, always up for question.

Why does grace seem to be so costly? Did you ever notice that an act of grace costs the giver in direct proportion to any perceived wrong? If you are acting in forgiveness with someone who you have perceived to have done you a wrong, the cost of grace will be paid by the one doing the forgiving. Well, of course. Grace comes from the archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection. Christ pays the cost of universal salvation by offering the gift of his own life. He paid, as it were, for us. The cost of grace is borne by the giver of grace.

Grace, while a lovely philosophy and a thrilling theology, is tremendously difficult to apply in actual, everyday living. This should not be surprising at all, since it is grounded in Christ's sacrifice. The problem lies in following him in its application  That is no small feat and should shock no one. Our faith is called Christianity, not easy-to-do-happy-fun-time. Grace requires much from us in response. Who is willing to pay the price?

Privilege

The Biblical picture of God's unfolding reign is completed when the lamb and the lion lie safely together. I think that there is a reason for that remarkably unlikely situation. In order for the lamb to lie safely with the lion, the lion must make a conscious decision to refuse to eat the lamb. In fact, the lion must make a decision to serve as protector of and security for the lamb. Only when those who have the advantages put them to work for the sake of those without the advantages can the system work for previously disadvantaged. Only when the lion takes responsibility for the safety of the lamb can the two lie together.

Now, I am a middle class white male. As such, I am advantaged. I am privileged. In this culture, I have been granted privileges that have nothing to do with my merits, character or work ethic. This truth is painful to me. As much as I want to deny it, I have begun the race well ahead of those who were not fortunate enough to be so advantaged.

I had two parents who cared about my destiny. They pushed me, and worked with me, to become well educated. They expected me to be a good person, treating people fairly and helping those who needed my assistance. I grew up in a safe environment. I did not fear for my life, or the lives of my friends and family. There were plenty of guns where I was raised, but they were used for hunting and protection instead of violence against other persons. I was always seen as a person of potential. Teachers, community leaders, my parents, friends and extended family assumed about me that, should I simply work to nurture my potential, I could do important and meaningful things in life. I was trusted, given responsibility, celebrated when I did well and guided when I did poorly.

The privilege has continued into adulthood. I have the right to assume that I will be treated with respect and integrity in the process of community interaction. I anticipate that people will respect my property and help me to safeguard my neighborhood. I have the right to my own opinion, can vote, can sign petitions, own property, establish a credit rating, read and watch what I want and cheer for whatever sports teams I so choose. I can believe in whatever god I wish, or hold that there is no god whatsoever. I have made money, not a lot, mind you, but enough to provide my daughter with an excellent education and a good start to her young, married life.

Some of this has been due to my hard work. Much of it has not.When I weigh all that I have been given, due mainly to my position in the culture, my race, my gender, my native intelligence, even my relative height (I am 6'2"), I can see that much of my advantage has come through happy accident. I am aware of and thankful for those undeserved advantages. As much as I want to claim that those privileges were available to me because of my hard work, I fully own the fact that many of them were not. I am a person of relative privilege.

I do not feel guilty, however, for the advantages that I was granted. Instead, because I am partially aware of them and thankful for them, my privilege calls me to utilize the gifts that I have been given to serve those who have not been so richly privileged. Instead of complaining that I do not have more, bigger, better, newer, more influential or more powerful, I acknowledge that the best use of what I have is in improving other lives.

While I am no lion, my appreciation for the privilege that I have been granted is spent on the lambs that appear as opportunity around me. Or so I would like to claim. Admittedly, I am only learning what it means to live in relative privilege, and to work for the benefit of the lambs that surround us. I only hope that I can do better today what I learned better how to do yesterday.  

    

Wedding Bells

Okay, so, wedding bells are ringing in and around the Robinson household. The time has finally come. Casey Robinson is marrying Justin Sierschula on July 25. Casey is our 25 year-old daughter.

From the time that Casey was a small child, I would tell her that I knew exactly what I wanted her to be when she grew up. She would always ask what that was. "Happy." I would say.

Casey was raised with pretty high expectations, placed on her by her mother, Lisa, and I, as well as the communities and churches in which she grew. Through all of it, I am proud to say that she was strongly nurtured and embraced. (This is not always the case for "PK's.") Through the gymnastic years, through high school and college, through the early years of her career as an ASL interpreter, and into this new chapter of her life, I have been, and continue to be, proud of the person that she has become.

Justin makes her happy. While my obsessive compulsive side wants to make sure that she will be constantly cared for and about, he gives her everything that I have ever wanted for her. She is happy. Everything else will work itself out. She is smart, capable, creative and responsible. Together, they are quirky, unique, fun and adventurous.Whatever comes their way, I am confident that they will handle it together. Happiness is all that we can hope for our children. I am thrilled that she has found it.

To the point of this week's post to The Shiloh Insider, the upcoming wedding means that I will be taking a few weeks off from Shiloh Church. My complete concentration will be on getting to and through the wedding. Then, I am taking a week to recover, emotionally, mentally and physically. The only project that I have on my agenda for the weeks is refinishing the back deck on the house (if it should ever stop raining). Besides that, I will be relaxing, recuperating and resting.

Casey's wedding also turns an important page for Lisa and me. Because Justin's family owns and operates a business in the area, it is likely that they will be tied to Englewood/Dayton for the long haul. In some ways, that means that the Dayton, Ohio area will always be something of a home base for us. While my family has been in the Indianapolis area, and Lisa's on the Illinois side of St. Louis, we have never before enjoyed a home base. We have always been sojourners, travelers, experts who carry a computer bag and live more than fifty miles from wherever we have found ourselves. From this time forward, and no matter where we might find ourselves, the Dayton area will remain a home base. That feels oddly warming.

Enjoy the next few weeks, free from obligation to read updates to The Shiloh Insider. I will return to the office and the chancel early in August.  

UCC in from the Fringes

The United Church of Christ has always been located somewhere out on the fringes of cultural and societal norms. The denomination has always been a champion for civil and social rights, from being the first church to ordain a woman to professional ministry, to fighting for racial equality and struggling for equal marriage rights for same-gender couples. The UCC has fought for farmers' rights, women's rights, racial justice, just peace movements around the globe and equal opportunities in our communities.

The concentration on human rights had always placed the United Church of Christ on the periphery of religious and social discourse. The Church has been seen as the enemy of traditional values and the nemesis of the status quo. Because we have stood firmly with the disenfranchised, the burdened, the underserved and underprivileged, the victimized and the oppressed, the United Church of Christ has rarely been recognized as a force for American culture.

I am thrilled to see evidence that the situation is changing radically. Do not misunderstand. The United Church of Christ continues to stand, with Christ, on the side of those who are victimized and oppressed by the systems and traditions under which we live, including religious ones. The denomination will continue to fight for equality and justice, both at home and around the world. Evidence of this being the case is provided in the General Synod 30 resolutions. The UCC voted to engage in boycott, divestment and sanction in the occupied territories of Israel-Palestine. The national body acted to pressure sports teams that utilize racial or cultural epithets in their logos, mascots or marketing to cease in doing so. Dialogues on race relations continue, as does the work for gender equality, LBGTQ concerns, worker rights and just peace initiatives.

No, the United Church of Christ has not come into the middle of the social context by moderating its message or its actions. Quite to the contrary, the culture, in which the United Church of Christ has worked in sometimes radical ways, has found our causes, calling from the fringes. The culture has found our causes. It has evolved to the point of visionary peace, radical justice and equality, social, cultural and relational compassion, kindness and generosity.

The culture is starting to throw off the heavy cloaks of partisan politics and divisive economics, religious retribution and separation theology. The Cultural evolution has been very troubling for those who had demanded that their religious practices of divisiveness and exclusion be found at the core of social and cultural life. Today, many who claim to be religious - it does not really matter which one - find themselves at war with the cultural evolution that is taking place around and through us. They call it the "end times."

I concur. These times mark the end of religious hegemony, of divisive and exclusionary religious practices that favor some over others, cater to the privileged, the wealthy and the powerful. These are times when radical issues of justice, equality and peace are pursued culturally, in society, universally and communally. In other words, these are times for God's will to become systemic, communal, cultural, personally and politically applicable.

Welcome in from the fringes, United Church of Christ. I am proud to be part of your transition.  

General Synod

I just returned today from six days of inspiration, discernment and worship at the 30th General Synod of the United Church of Christ. This was my thirteenth Synod experience and, by far, the most exhilarating celebration of the Church that I have witnessed. Here is why.

Firstly, on the first day of business, the Supreme Court of the United Stated released a ruling that said that States may no longer restrict marriage rights from those of same genders. While not everyone agrees with that decision - nor does everyone support it - the determination marked the realization of decades of work by the United Church of Christ. The response that we may make to those who disagree, or who seek to understand how a church can support such a ruling, is simple. The United Church of Christ stands with Christ in applied love and acceptance of all people, even if that stance seems to differ from Biblical principles that are derived from and developed within particular human contexts. Regardless of who, what race, what ethnicity, what gender, what economic or social status, what life-style, what sexuality, what politics, the United Church of Christ seeks to accept all people.

Secondly, the United Church of Christ called and installed the next General Minister and President of the denomination. His name is John C. Dorhauer, a seminary classmate of mine, who is a recognized expert in the field of white, male privilege and a warm, engaging minister and pastor. Though a middle class, straight, white male, John offers us an opportunity to see ourselves, and our callings, from new perspectives. As another friend of mine says about John, "He offers me hope for the future of the Church." I concur. This was a fine choice for General Minister and President of the Church. John will help us maneuver paths toward justice and peace among all persons.

Thirdly, and I think most importantly, the United Church of Christ is finally matching the arc of social evolution with its ministry and mission focus. The denomination had always been out ahead. We looked too liberal, too progressive, odd and dangerous. Now, with recent social and cultural evolutionary steps, the United Church of Christ is reflective of and relevant to the directions of the world in which we live and serve. Culture is moving. So is the United Church of Christ! Finally, we seem to be moving together!

At Synod, I served as a member of a committee that deliberated a resolution of attaining a just peace in the Israeli-Palestinian territories, including boycott, disinvestment and sanction in relationship to companies that profit from acts of violence and exclusion in the territories. After some amendment, this resolution was overwhelmingly ratified by the plenary. Another, related resolution on Israel-Palestine failed, however, mainly because it sought to label the climate in Israel-Palestine as "Apartheid." Those who lived through the 70's may remember the Apartheid government in South Africa, where a racial minority ruled over a racial majority. Because of the distinctions between that situation and that of Israel-Palestine, and because the term is incendiary, the resolution was rejected by the plenary. While human rights violations have certainly come to light, the commitment of the UCC is to a resolution of the conflicts instead of a further incitement of the divisions.

The Worship of General Synod 30 was inventive, inspiration, meaningful and powerful. Shiloh will be seeing some of that worship form and content throughout the summer months. We hope that you will attend, being part of this congregation and the denomination to which we belong. We are the United Church of Christ, where we encounter God in unexpected places and through unanticipated means. Help the world encounter God with us, as we stand with Christ in applying unconditional love and acceptance.

Christian Anthropology

If the notes of disagreement that I have received from members and friends of the congregation are any indication, the messages of the past several weeks have struck a chord. In this season after Pentecost, through the first 13 weeks of this season, I planned to shape an understanding of our Christian calling that is fulfilled when we subject ourselves to the power of God's indwelling Spirit. This theological view of human nature is, obviously, quite controversial.

The anthropology here suggests that human beings - all and each one - are of the same essential nature as Jesus. Especially in the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus is a human being, who is adopted by God in Baptism in order to accomplish God's will on Earth. It is not Jesus' essential nature as the Son of God that renders him able and willing to do God's will, but the power of God's Spirit upon and within him.

Over the past several weeks, events have invited us to apply the lesson of adoption in the Spirit to a radical sense of equality. If every person receives the same Spirit, then each one is to be held as important, worthy, valuable and as potential to God's reign and realm. Therefore, where and when there are incidents of discrimination, we are invited to stand with Christ against them. This includes the fact that black people get pulled over by police for no reason, as happened last week to a member of the congregation. I understand that white people get pulled over too, but it is typically for a reason or reasons. When an officer has to manufacture a reason for pulling over a motorist, then the officer is overstepping her or his authority. This happens disproportionately to minorities. It is an injustice.

Clearly, when a white supremacist enters a traditionally black church in Charleston, South Carolina and guns down nine innocent Bible study participants, it is an injustice. What is even more tragic is that we, as a society, continue to produce persons who are so filled with anger and hate that they would take such violent action. In fact, it seems that we are more supportive of radicalized words of hate, judgment, rejection and partisanship. Personal attacks are commonplace. We vilify "the liberals" or blame everything on "the conservatives." We call each other things like "stupid," "ignorant," "ugly," "fat," or "delusional." All of it is angry, violent, and judgmental. It is injustice.

If we are ever to live in God's will, if we are ever to establish God's reign and realm on Earth, then that work must begin with a renewed sense of commonality, unity and a rejection of that which divides and separates us. We must start with the very essence of human nature. If each of us is like Christ Jesus, then no one will tolerate mistreatment of any brother or sister. No injustice would be supported or condoned.

June is Gay Pride Month. It may be uncomfortable for some to think that a recognition of LBGT rights and openness and affirmation of alternative life-styles is a separate issue. But is it not. It is the same issue. Acceptance and embrace of LBGT persons is about justice.

Apparently, not everyone agrees. Yes, I am aware. And, yes, I am sensitive to the controversy. I firmly and wholeheartedly believe, however, that it is time that we get over our sometimes subtle biases and stand with Christ for the benefit of every and each person.

Holiness and Service

There is an inverse relationship between the degree to which we hold Jesus as a divine character and the degree to which we feel ourselves to be empowered by God's Holy Spirit. Surprisingly, if one thinks of Jesus as the divine Son of God, whose essential nature renders him able on Earth to do God's will, then we will tend to diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in ourselves. If we think of Jesus as a human being, just like each of us, who is empowered for his ministry and mission by the Spirit of his Baptism, then we will tend to understand that we are similarly, but uniquely, empowered by the same Spirit.

For those who take part in our twice-weekly Bible studies at Shiloh, the relationship can be understood as an inverse relationship between Christology and Pneumatology. Christology is an attempted definition of the one by whom we are saved, while Pneumatology deals with our understanding of the role of God's Holy Spirit. As it turns out, a high Christology results in a low Pneumatology. A low Christology equates to a high Pneumatology.

A more practical explanation comes organically, since we are in year B of the Revised Common Lectionary. Throughout year B, our concentration for the themes of worship come from the Gospel According to Mark. In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is drawn differently than in the other synoptics and John. Mark's Gospel begins with Jesus' Baptism. This is purposeful and meaningful. The author is making a very important point. His point is simply that Jesus' ability to do on Earth what God calls him to do is a function of the Holy Spirit, not of Jesus' essential nature. This is a low Christology and a high Pneumatology.

Throughout year B of the Revised Common Lectionary, we have the opportunity in the Church to examine the human side of Jesus, to see him as one of us, empowered uniquely by God's Spirit to accomplish what God directs. Mark does not deify Jesus. Instead, the author allows Jesus to wrestle with an unfolding awareness of the power of God's Spirit, and with means of utilizing the Spirit to do what is best for all and each person that Jesus encounters. The power to do God's will comes from God's Spirit in Jesus, not from his position as the Son of God. He is adopted to it.

Throughout the Season After Pentecost in year B of the Revised Common Lectionary, Mark's low Christology invites the Church to embrace a very high Pneumatology. We embrace a Holy Spirit that equipped Jesus and now equips us. We strive to understand and practice the ministry for which the Spirit enables us and to which the ministry of Jesus Christ calls us. As it did in Jesus, so the Spirit does in us.

If I may be so bold, I suggest that the contemporary Church of Jesus Christ struggles with a low Christology and a high Pneumatology, precisely because it levels the ground between Jesus' essential nature and ours. We have been conditioned to think of Jesus as "other," as unlike typical humanity, as being of divine origin and character. Mark's Gospel erases that distinction, or at least blurs its lines, to the point where we can see ourselves in Jesus. A careful reading of the text allows us to see ourselves both as equal to Jesus and equally empowered by God's Holy Spirit.

The Season After Pentecost becomes crucial in the liturgical calendar. The Church understands itself as the body of Christ, empowered, like Christ Jesus, by God's own Spirit, in order to establish God's will as an earthly way of life. The Church is completion of the promise that was made throughout history, and in Christ Jesus, to bring God's kingdom (forgive, please, the male imagery).

So, I invite every reader of The Shiloh Insider to entertain, at least for this liturgical season, the possibility that we are equal in essential nature to Jesus and equally empowered by God's own Spirit to accomplish God's will on earth.

Spirit or Flesh: How About Both?

Christianity, perhaps from its roots in the Hellenistic dualism of Plato and others, has often claimed the life of the spirit over the life of the flesh. The result of such a division has sometimes been the absolute denigration of anything that is historical, practical or reasonable. As a result, things that are spiritual must be other-worldly, ahistorical, beyond the bounds of human existence. Nothing good, holy or acceptable to God can come of corporeal existence. So we place Heaven/Hell outside of human history. We place God in a heavenly realm, where spirit dwells.

The problem with this picture is, of course, that, in Pentecost, Spirit dwells in humanity. It is not separated from human existence or corporeal nature. Spirit is experienced within human history, as a product of words and acts that reflect the virtues that are taught in the archetype of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, as well as reflected as "heavenly virtues" in Hellenistic culture.

If the Spirit is granted us in Pentecost, then it is necessarily part and parcel of the human historical experience. It is a mistake to place the realm of the Spirit beyond human history or outside of corporeal existence. Instead, we must work at establishing human history and corporeal existence as an experience of the Spirit.

In Hellenism, this practice establishes the reason for which humans exist. The realm of the Spirit, in the Heavens, mingles with the realm of the flesh in everything that lives. God breathes God's Spirit into otherwise unanimated matter. The Spirit is the very life that lives and moves and has its being. That Spirit belongs to the Divine and is not considered to be the possession or property of the flesh in which it dwells. All life is an admixture of spirit and flesh, of energy and matter. In modern physics, one might say that all life is derived from the motion of some form of wave, particle or string that brings and comprises life itself. It may or may not be corporeal in nature, but its effects and presence is both measurable and noticeable. While life exists, then, it is of both Divine and corporeal nature. The task of those who are aware of their natural and essential identity is to bring the spiritual virtues to bear within corporeal and historical nature.

There is no division here between Spirit and flesh. In fact, Spirit is granted everything that lives in order to construct all corporeal life as an experience of the Spirit. These are the "heavenly virtues" that humans experience as "good" or of Divine origin. It turns out that the same dynamic exists in the archetype that is established in Christ's Crucifixion/Resurrection. Sacrifice for the sake of others is the highest heavenly virtue, core to the world's religions and common to every decent human practice.

When we remove the Spirit from human potentiality, we render God's realm as external to human existence. This is contrary to the theology of Pentecost, where humanity is empowered to establish God's realm on Earth. Human beings, so empowered and enabled, can establish God's will. It is time that we marry the two - Spirit and flesh - instead of divide them. Human existence is not an either/or proposition but a both/and. Pentecost says that we are able, if willing, to live according to God's will on Earth. Maybe something like "Spirit in Flesh" or "Flesh by Spirit" better articulate the Pentecost season than "Spirit or Flesh."

Imminent of Delayed Kingdom?

The 7:00 p.m. worship service at Shiloh is a mix of contemporary, alternative and raucous worship styles. It is Shiloh's own creation, but it works quite well for the gathered community.

Over the past several weeks, the community has considered the difference between an imminent understanding of God's kingdom on Earth or a delayed understanding of God's reign. The issues are all tied up in concepts of salvation, fulfillment, mission and ministry, as well as theologies of stewardship, evangelism and pneumatology. (I heard someone yawn out there...just hang with me.)

An imminent understanding of God's kingdom implies that God's reign is established on Earth when those faithful to Christ Jesus embrace and embody the ethic that Christ established, lived and taught. It is fulfilled when we live in the conditions that God may intend for each of us. It is an ethical system that presumes that God's realm is possible, potential and ultimately qualitative.

A delayed understanding of God's kingdom implies that salvation comes only externally to human history, as a result either of heaven-induced apocalyptic, wherein a new world is created, or a post-historical system of reward and punishment, where we spend eternity in either heaven or hell. Either formula works simply. One is either qualified morally or disqualified morally from eternal reward, whether that of participating in the new world order, under God's command, or of earning one's way into heaven as ultimate reward. The corollary is also true. One may live morally enough to escape being on the outside of God's realm or being consigned to eternity in the fires of hell.

At the 7:00 p.m. service, there is an occasion built into the service where the community discusses the message, texts, points or directions. This happens every week. Over the past several weeks, we have asked whether persons hold to an imminent or delayed understanding of God's kingdom. The decision matters because that decision, and ones associated with it, determine how we spend our time, talent, energies, money and concentration.

If we believe that God's kingdom comes imminently, as the result of faithful actions of those who seek to embody the ethic of Christ Jesus, then we believe that we co-establish with God a way of life that reflects God's will, even here on Earth. Ethical action leads to establishment of God's kingdom, and salvation is, therefore, conditionally established. The Church of Jesus Christ spends its time, talent, energy and money in establishing God's kingdom on Earth.

If we believe that God's kingdom is delayed, placed beyond human history, that it comes only when God defeats all evil on the face of the Earth or that Heaven and Hell are established as places outside the human arena, then we believe that we have to live morally, following the dictates and principles of our religions, ensuring that we are rewarded, either after death or post-apocalyptic. We spend our time, talent, energies and money in getting ourselves, and others, morally right. We avoid the punishment of hell and prepare for the paradise of heaven, to defend against being left out (or behind) and being, instead, included in God's realm.

So, we asked Sunday, which is it? What do you believe about salvation and the establishment of God's kingdom? How have you decided to spend your time, talent, energy and money?  

Diversity in Action

I was attending a summit meeting of leaders from the Southwest Ohio Northern Kentucky Association (SONKA) and the Central Southeast Ohio Association (CSEOA) when I heard a very interesting metaphor for embracing diversity, one of which I had never thought.

Another clergy representative from SONKA made the point that diversity actually makes things better. By mixing different elements, the whole improves. He made the point by saying something like this:

I like Long Island Iced Teas. Now, those particular drinks are a combination of five, potent alcohols, none of which, left to themselves, are very tasty or desirable. A Long Island includes Tequila, Gin, Vodka, White Rum and Triple sec. It is mixed with lemon juice and a splash of cola, over ice. At the face of it, it would seem that a Long Island Iced Tea is bitter and powerful, consumed only by those who seek a quick drunk. But that perception is mistaken. A Long Island is actually quite tasty and refreshing. While I would almost never enjoy any of the elements of the drink by themselves, I really enjoy them when they come together in my favorite adult beverage.

Mixing diverse elements makes the whole better. It does not require that component part become like the others, nor that the component parts cease to have individual function. It is simply this: the whole is improved by combining the component parts. That is a remarkable model for diversity, I think. Human life is improved when we combine the individual, differing components that comprise it.

The summit meeting between SONKA an CSEOA is an example of diversity in action. The summit group is comprised of three or four representatives from each Association. We have met to investigate ways in which we might improve our ministry and mission by working together. Now, I must confess that the two Associations are unique entities. They are organized differently, led differently, staffed differently and they operate differently. But they share a common ministry and mission. Each is called to equip, empower and provide resource to, with and for its member local churches. The question of the summit is simple. How can we better fulfill our mission by sharing the load of Association possibility?

The steering committee has identified two areas wherein we might begin better serving both Associations. The first is a Church and Ministry function. Anyone who has served in the Church and Ministry function is Associations of the United Church of Christ knows that the tasks are wide-ranging and daunting. It is this group that deals with persons in discernment, those who are investigating and in the process of becoming professional ministers. This group also deals with those who are authorized in ministry leadership, those who are licensed or commissioned for specialized and/or ministry that is limited in scope. This group is also responsible for those who qualify as post-ordination, ministry professionals who have the continual need of boundary training and occasional professional review and censure. A working group of three persons from each Association is investigating ways that we might work together to better serve our local churches.

The second area that the steering committee has surfaced is communication technology. Both Associations recognize both the challenges of and potential for communication technologies in, through and with the Associations and their local churches. How can we help one another to best utilize the ever-expanding world of communication technologies? How can we supply and train local churches is use of technology? How can we improve cross-Association communication of opportunities and workshops that one or the other Association is offering.

We are hoping that, as we mix these potent ministries together, we come up with something sweet, something that makes the whole even  better than its component parts.      
 

One of Those Days

Have you ever had "one of those days?" You know them, I am sure. These are days in which everything that possibly can goes wrong. Nothing seems to work as planned, prepared or designed.

It began early. I could have sworn that I had my cell phone when I left for work this morning. When I arrived at the office, I could not locate the phone. I spent about fifteen minutes searching every nook and cranny of my car, computer bag, office and areas in between. No phone. I am at a loss.

Upon arriving at Shiloh Church, I was quickly approached by a member of the Shiloh staff who had been experiencing conflict with the representative of the Board of Elections who is in charge of the Shiloh polling precinct. Seems that the precinct representatives wanted in the facility earlier that their contract with the church specifies, that the rep. asked this member of the staff to be here earlier, and that, when he came earlier, no one from the precinct was present until the normal agreed-to time.

Then, about 9:00, the same precinct representative smelled gas in the facility and called the fire department. She notified no person from Shiloh that she was doing so. The facility was evacuated in order for the fire department, who arrived quickly, to check for a gas leak. Some members of staff first heard of the situation when we heard sirens in the parking lot. We were outside, on this, thankfully, gorgeous day, for about 30 minutes. We were not notified that it was safe to return to the facility, but from a member of the staff who had been communicating with the fire department.

I have had three lengthy discussions with representatives of the Board of Elections, more than a few discussions with staff members and volunteers, and even one with a concerned citizen. None of them had located my cell phone, and I was finding myself squeezed between "he said" and "she said."
I had five meetings yesterday and was feeling a need to concentrate on the stack of responsibilities that were piling up in my office. Not to be.

I write all this because I am seeing a need in my day to shift my personal perspective, to alter my attitude, to amend my mood and treat the day differently. Firstly, it is a beautiful day. The temps are to reach in the neighborhood of eighty degrees, the sun is brightly shining, and Shiloh's grass is being mowed by a very faithful and professional group of people who showed up in the midst of the chaos. They were unaffected. They went about their business on the church grounds as if nothing had happened.

I can replace the phone. It is well out of its two-year contract, so it should not cost me much. I will lose the contacts and the information that I had stored there, but that is minimal. Things are pretty well worked out with the Board of Elections, though members of staff remain troubled. There is nothing that we can do about it today anyway.

It is Tuesday. That means that Shiloh has Bible study tonight. That is always great news. As evidenced by my writing this blog post, I am getting to the stack of things on my desk, despite the interruptions of the day. All in all, despite the bumps in the road, it is a splendid day...and I get to shop for a new phone. Thanks be to God for such a beautiful, marvelous, fabulous day.

Namaste.

Marriage Equality and ONA Status

Most everyone knows by this time that the Supreme Court of the United States is in session this week to argue the constitutionality of State restriction on same-gender marriage. It is widely assumed that SCOTUS will determine State bans unconstitutional and that same-gender marriages will become legal in all fifty States. In Ohio, such a lifting of restrictions is meaningful.

Ohio is a State that currently bans same-gender marriage. If we are right, and if SCOTUS removes State restriction, then same-gender marriage will become legal in Ohio. That may mean that churches, congregations and Temples may be crowded with same-gender couples who looking to legalize their commitment in marriage.

While Shiloh is not officially ONA (the UCC classification of congregations that are "open and affirming" of LGBT persons and issues) the congregation certainly holds to the acceptance of all persons. In fact, when I brought the issue of ONA status, now more than ten years ago, the leadership at Shiloh thought it a misrepresentation of the church's openness to reduce hospitality to ONA distinction. Our welcome went further than the ONA classification. Therefore, the congregation did not consider ONA status.

Now, however, it may be time for Shiloh to reconsider the determination of ONA status. The reason for pursuing such classification is an intentional openness to those couples who may be seeking marriage equality in wake of the Supreme Court decision. If couples consult the UCC website and search for congregations that are ONA, Shiloh would not be included among those churches. That would be an unfortunate exclusion. Even though the ONA policy is limited, it may be time for Shiloh to state at least that portion of its intentional affirmation of all persons.

If SCOTUS outlaws State restrictions on same-gender marriages, Shiloh will have an opportunity to serve a widely rejected population. Statement of ONA status would certainly ease that intentional hospitality.

Assuming that Shiloh accepts LGBT persons among those to whom we are called to extend Christ's radical welcome, this may be the perfect time for the congregation to study, vote upon and demonstrate Christ's love by adopting the ONA stance. While the statement is more limited than Shiloh's affirmation of all persons, this may be the perfect time for us to embrace at least that part of intentional affirmation.

By the way, if SCOTUS should rule against State bans on same-gender marriage, it is likely that such a decision would be rendered sometime around the end of June, 2015, when many of us will be attending the General Synod meeting of the United Church of Christ in Cleveland. It should be one huge celebration!  

Small Church Practice? O Hell No!

Tony Robinson (no relation) recently wrote in a United Church of Christ online devotional that it may be time that we revert to "small church." What he meant by that, I assume, was not small membership congregations, or small budget ones, but ones whose practice is small. I am unsure whether Robinson was advocating a move to small purpose congregations or if he was pointing out current conditions. Either way, I think that he is dead wrong.

In the devotional, Robinson said that we are moving toward communities that engage in spiritual prayer and renewal, biblical studies and mutual care. (I am not quoting because I did not retain the devotional). Interesting. Where in there is anything that lies outside of one's self or immediate community? Where is mission and ministry? Where is an act of self-sacrifice that embodies the purpose to which Christ Jesus calls the Church?

Small church minimizes the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. It reduces it down to individual and group spirituality, prayer, study and care. None of those things are bad, mind you. All are part and parcel of the function of the Church of Jesus Christ. But they cannot, and must never, become the full function of congregations that serve to represent Jesus Christ.

Churches that claim to be congregations of Jesus Christ, communing with him and joining him in mission and ministry, can never be reduced to individual and group function within the life of the small-ministry congregation. On the contrary, the impact of even a small population or small budget church can be meaningful in communities and throughout the world. Small numbers can make significant changes if they are focused on embodying the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, in, to, with and for those communities.

Imagine if the disciples had decided to embody Robinson's small church practice. They would have remained a tight-knit community of like believers, or relatively so, who prayed and studied together, caring for one another and ensuring that the needs of each community member was met. They would have died peacefully, never having accomplished a single, wider ministry or mission than that required beyond the exercise of the group. In short, nothing would have happened.

And nothing happens today in congregations that accept Robinson's small church practice. In fact, Christ Jesus is not practiced, because the practice of Christ calls us beyond our walls, our spiritualities, our studies, our worship, our prayers. It calls us into the world, meeting the needs of those who struggle mightily in a world whose benefits are skewed to the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. Small church does nothing, beyond one's own group, to meet those needs or to stand with Christ against the world's injustice, inequality, exclusionary close-mindedness.

Nope. I do not accept the concept of small church. We are called to big ministry and mission in Christ's name. We are called, as communities of faith, to stand with Christ against the wrongs of the systems under which we live and to engage in concrete acts of kindness and generosity for those who are victimized by them. If we reject the ministry of Jesus Christ in favor of the small church practice that Robinson seems to advocate in his devotional, then we are not the Church of Jesus Christ at all.
We might be sound spiritual communities, learned and prayerful ones perhaps, but we are not following the ministry and mission to which Christ has called us.

The James Ossuary

We wake up to the television news every morning, except for Saturdays and Sundays, when the news is replaced by special interest programming and infomercials. This morning, I stayed in bed a little later than usual because of the promise of a news report that would forever change the face of Christianity.

I was intrigued. The promise was of a new archaeological discovery that would undo much of what we had thought of as core to the Christian faith. When I heard a bit more, I was skeptical. This new archaeological discovery supposedly proved that the Resurrection never happened, but that Jesus lived a normal life, with wife and child, and died, being buried according to the customs of his day.

The burial customs of Jesus' day were unique, as we all know. One is pronounced dead. The body is placed in a secluded spot until persons can determine that the body is really quite sincerely dead, instead of being just merely dead. They poke it with a stick. If it moves, it is alive. If it does not, then the body is determined to be dead. At that point, the body is treated with caustic spices. These hasten the decomposition process. The body is then wrapped in cloth, also to hasten decomposition. The tomb is closed. A year to the day after the person's death, the family members open the tomb, unwrap what is left of the body, collect up the bones and place them in a stone box, called an ossuary, where other family bones are stored.

The breaking news was not breaking news at all, but an old story. In 1980, and ossuary was discovered in a Jerusalem private collection that bore the inscription: Jesus, son of Joseph, brother of James. It was, of course, in Hebrew script. The only new information to come from the report on this discovery of "The James Ossuary" was the discovery of a site where it had been, purportedly, entombed. At that site, archaeologists uncovered ossuaries for Mary and a young boy. This had led the archaeologists to conclude that the James Ossuary proved Jesus' typical burial, and that the discovery of Mary's and the boy's prove that Jesus had a wife and son.

I am giggling as I type this on my laptop. Even is the James Ossuary belonged to the Jesus of Nazareth that we follow, that leads to doubt about the ascension of Jesus, not his resurrection. Let's say that Jesus was buried in the typical fashion. That only means that his ultimate end was not an ascension into heaven but a normal death. It says nothing of the Resurrection, unless one believes, as I do, that the Resurrection points to spiritual instead of physical reality.

Besides, archaeology has surfaced literally hundreds of ossuary. Many bear the names Jesus, Joseph and James, some even in combination.This is old news. It discounts nothing. It proves nothing. It does raise some doubt about the historicity of the ascension narrative, but I imagine that few of us take that as scientific fact.

My point is that I should have gotten out of bed instead of waiting for this "breaking" news. There was nothing new here, and nothing particularly exciting. I get to hold onto my belief in the spiritual resurrection of Christ Jesus for yet another day.

Happy Easter!

Standing With Christ

In working through this past Sunday's texts - It was Palm/Passion Sunday - I noticed something that I had only tangentially regarded before this year. The Triumphal Entry is actually the clash of two religious cultures, one that is reflected in the Temple and the other reflected in those who sit, begging, at the city gate.

The Temple authority is a traditional configuration. It is a closed audience, a hereditary code, an exclusive association of those who have, by birth or "proper" behavior, worked their way into positions of power and recognition. Only the proper ones are allowed access. If there is something wrong with you, if you are a leper or lame or blind or a menstruating woman, if you are poor or unemployed or unusual, if you are a non-Jew or dressed inappropriately, or if you eat the wrong things or think the wrong kinds of ways, well then, you are simply not allowed access. The privilege that keeps all those within the system from falling out are taken for granted and held up as expectations and standards of those who are left outside.

At the gate sit those who have been excluded. They have no access to the benefits of the Temple. Because they are excluded from Temple, they are excluded from business, relationship, association, acceptance and hospitality. These are the pariahs. They are untouchable. To associate with them renders those within the Temple system impure, unacceptable, defiled. The two cultures rarely, if ever, interact. The gate population is to be avoided at all costs. In fact, if the Temple authority could manage it, they would disallow the gate population from sitting and begging at the Temple gate. What an embarrassment they are to those who come from afar to visit the Temple of the Lord.

Jesus comes, borrowing the ancient symbol of royal coronation, to declare to the gate population that there is a new religion afoot. There is a new world coming. There is a new way. In this new configuration, Jews and non-Jews will be equal, in both the sight of the Temple and in the courts of law. Leprosy will become a universal need for care and medical research. Those who are lame and deaf and blind will be supported and cared for and valued. The poor will be employed. Women will be respected and no longer considered the property of men. The divisiveness of the Temple system will come to an end and all people shall be included in the population that is in covenant with God.

The Temple hates this symbol. The Sanhedrin despises the promise. Such radical equality is simply not to be allowed. Such grace is ridiculous to a system that has been so steeped in the law.

The clash goes on. In Indiana, two religious communities are clashing over current legislation. The "Freedom of Religion" bill has been approved by the Indiana Representatives and Senators and signed into law by the Governor. Now, the law in itself has little of so much controversy. It is similar to what has been enacted in other states and federally. What differentiates the Indiana bill from the others is its intention. It comes from the desire of some businesses within the state to refuse service to some segments of the population because those persons practice in ways unacceptable to the business owners. Should a business not have the right to refuse service to persons who do not live up to some moral or religious code?

The question is quite simple, really, and can be applied in a very consistent manner that follows a very basic Christian rubric. Do we stand on the side of Christ or do we represent the Temple culture that Christ's radical practice of equality and respect so deeply insulted?

Holy Week provides a clear answer. Some today stand with the crowd that shouts "Crucify him!" while some stand boldly by him, rejecting exclusionary legislation. What will we do this week? Where do we stand?  

The Big 54

The 54th birthday is not usually a cause for tremendous celebration. In fact, at this age, birthdays come and go, all to quickly. There is little that differentiates one from another. Unless there is some special reason, 54 is just another year to celebrate, looking back at what has been accomplished and another occasion for imagining as we look forward.

Unless, that is, there is something more to it than we might at first realize, which is the case with me. This is a very big birthday.

Let me explain.

My father died, in 1989, at the age of 53, just months short of the birth of our first and only daughter, Casey Jane. He died as the result of medical mishap, a mistake made in the course of a heart catheterization (sp?) that cut off blood flow to his intestines. When they opened his chest cavity for a quadruple bypass two weeks after, they discovered that a significant portion of his intestines had become necrotic and gangrenous. Instead of pursuing incredibly dangerous, and nearly impossible, medical procedures at the time, he decided, in consultation with the family and the doctors, to allow his life to end naturally. He died later that same day.

I have inherited many of my father's health challenges. I am hypertensive, with an enlarged heart and slightly high cholesterol. My transglycerides have advanced over the years, though only to a slightly high point. My habits are not like his were, however. I quit smoking in 1994. I work out as often as I can, though there is a special challenge with a very bad hip and two bad knees. While my diet is not perfect, I do not eat three-egg fried egg sandwiches three lunches per week or drink upward of a dozen cups of battery-acid coffee every day. I know my health numbers. They are not perfect, but better than they were ten years ago.

In short, 54 looks pretty good. I thought that I would take this occasion to celebrate some of that for which I am thankful...and some of that for which I hope.

I am thankful for my family. My wife and my daughter continue to be tremendous life-partners. They are, in many ways, the reason that I do what I do and the motivation behind me doing it. I am thankful for the life time of memories, for those who have contributed to shaping me, educating me, inspiring me, reminding me who I am and from whence I have come. I recognize the influence of teachers, coaches, mentors, friends and colleagues along the way. Thank you to each of you.

I am thankful for advancements in medical science, which, if they had been available in my father's time, may well have saved his life. I am thankful for doctors and nurses, who dedicate their lives to dealing with human illness, hoping that the outcome of their care is human wellness.

This leads me directly to several things for which I continue to hope and work. I wish that medical care were less financially dictated, that insurance companies did not have the power or authority to determine one's health care. I wish that we could all receive whatever care we needed and desired, like Angelina Jolie, who can afford to take preventative and voluntary surgical measures to protect herself from illness.I wish that option were open to the poor and middle class as well as the rich. I wish that we were more unified in caring for one another, that the superficialities that divide us might be erased by the unity at the essential human core.I wish that people treated others with respect and honor. I wish that list included all others, not just those of one's kind, type, class, status, race, orientation or life style.

Because I have been given this gift, which I, today, celebrate, I dedicate my remaining years to achievement of these wishes. I hope to serve in communities where they join me in the effort of overcoming decades and centuries of divisiveness in ways that result in radical unity, peace, justice and mercy.

The 54th is a big birthday for me. Thanks for all the kind wishes. Now, can we get to work?!  

 

Perspective

This past week, in Shiloh's regular Thursday Bible study, we were discussing the texts that are designated for this past Sunday by the Revised Common Lectionary. Among the four designated texts were the two that we had decided to use as the focal point of worship for the fourth Sunday in Lent: Ephesians 2:8-10 and John 3:14-21.

The conversation arose naturally, as we were attempting to tie our modified Historical/Critical Method to a direct application for that upcoming Sunday. We discussed the Pauline concentration on the grace of God in the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus and the typical epistolary elements of his letters. We determined that, given those typical and necessary elements, Ephesians seems only slightly like Pauline material. The theology is similar, but the essence of the epistle is missing. We discussed that the theology of grace is always juxtaposed with a theology of the law. The question is whether Jesus and Paul reflected a conditional relationship with God, as one would expect under a theology of law, or if it is unconditional, as one would experience with a theology of grace.

In the course of the conversation, in order to make transition to consideration of the gospel texts, I said that most biblical texts can be interpreted from either perspective. In order to support the point, I demonstrated to the class how John 3:16 can be read as either conditional or unconditional statement of faith. (I did the same at the 10:25 service on Sunday morning.)

John 3:16 can reflect both a conditional (law) or unconditional (grace) relationship with the God of Jesus Christ. Here is what is written: For God so loved the world that God gave God's own begotten Son, that whomsoever should but believe in him would not perish but have eternal life (my translation). Does this mean that everyone receives salvation in Jesus Christ, or that only those who believe (rightly) in him do? The difference in how one reads the text reflects how one was raised, how one thinks, and what one embraces as a truth of life. Those who believe that their relationship with God is conditional will read the text from that perspective. Those who believe that their relationship with God is unconditional will read the text from that perspective. Neither, it turns out, tends to entertain the alternative perspective.

Some in the class understood that the text itself could be interpreted from alternative perspectives. The text is not definitive, but open to interpretation. Some in the Sunday service understood that the text leaves the interpretive door ajar and that neither perspective is certain, at least not according to the text itself. Most wanted to argue the point, from one perspective or the other.

It was clear, however, that the intent of the Revised Common Lectionary authors was that this text should be interpreted as the theology of grace. Tying John 3:16 to Ephesians, the notion that we are saved solely through faith and not works, with works as faithful response to the free gift of God's grace, is testament to the theology of grace. The Revised Common Lectionary interprets John 3:16 as belonging to the theology of grace, and approaches the theme from that perspective.

While not a definitive answer to how we should interpret John 3:16, the action of the Revised Common Lectionary authors is informative. But the question for us is clear. Is John 3:16 a conditional or unconditional statement? Does it paint the picture of relationship with the God of Jesus Christ according to the theology of law or according to the theology of grace. The answer, it turns out, tells us more about our perspectives than it informs us about the faith.

By the way, almost every scriptural text can be read from either perspective. In fact, the divisions between unconditional and conditional perspectives on faith have been the chief dividing factors within, among, and from religious traditions of every kind and every place throughout time. I wonder if we can move past those perspectives and find common ground from which to practice the mission and ministry to which our faith calls us? Perhaps faith relies more on the outcomes of what we do than the path that we follow in order to get to them?    

I Hate Lent

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.