It is that time again. It is the last day of 2008 and now is the time to make the New Year Resolutions. I have a number of friends who tell me that they don't make any because they never keep them. What is the use? I prefer to make them because I think they do at least two things.
One, they are a confession that I am not perfect now. To make a resolution to do someting next year that you are not doing this year or to quit doing next year something that you are doing this year is to confess that your life is not all that you want it to be. You are not perfect as you are. The resistance to make New Year Resolutions maybe that some people do not want to have to admit that there is anything about them that needs to be changed. "God loves and accepts me as I am, why should I change?" To make a resolution is confess the need to be different to change.
Two, they are the affirmation that I still believe that change is possible. Perhaps that is the harder affirmation. It is a affirmation that santification is possible. Conversions do take place. A resolution not only admits that I need to be different, but that I can become different. It fights the forces of inertia which say "You can't change the spots on a leopard. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Those people will always be that way. Trailer park bred trailer park dead." The resolution is rooted in the faith that redemption is possible. I am a sinner, but by the grace of God and by that grace working in me, I can become something better and different.
I have made lots of resolutions and my friends are correct. There are lots of them that I have not been able to keep fully, but I suspect that I am a better person now than I was years ago from the trying and from the things I did do to honor them.
A New Year's Resolution is the fulfillment of the old line, "By God, I am not what I ought to be; I am not what I am going to be, but thank God, I am not what I used to be." Happy New Year.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Just one look!
No sooner do we get the baby born on Christmas, than two days later we have the family in the temple for the presentation of the child to the Lord. The story focuses on those two temple fixtures: Simeon and Anna. Every church or place of worship has them. The people who just hang out there and do stuff. Most of the time nobody knows what they do. They fix the candles. They fill the water jugs. They take out the trash. They fix the broken door. They just are there. Simeon and Anna. They are there because they have this great passion to be there when it happens. They want to see it from the beginning. They have this absolute faith that God will move in history for the redemption of his people, and they want to participate from the moment it starts. Anna was 84 years old and it says she never left the place. She was going to be first in line when it happened.
The story does not say what made this child so different. There is no explanation as to what caught Simeon's and Anna' eyes, but suddenly there he was, and they were satisfied. Just the one look and they yearnings were fulfilled. They had seen the one who in whom God was acting to redeem his people.
For many of us it is a hard story to understand. Most of us are not looking or waiting for God to move in history with that kind of endurance. We expect our blessings from God on a much more immediate basis. We want God to do it now or the heck with it. We talk about wanting world peace or everybody to love everybody, but one looks long and hard for those for whom that hope is the central fact of their being. Nor is our longing for peace as corporate at Simeon's and Anna"s. Most of the time my longings and passions are for a much smaller group. Nor is it likely that we would feel like we had received what we were waiting for if all we got was a glimpse of a baby.
But maybe we did get a picture of that kind of moment in the faces of those African American Senior Citizens who struggled to get to the polls this November and who, on Election night as Obama stood on that stage, had tears streaming down their faces. All their lives they had waited and hoped for the coming of the day that they would see a black person elected as President. Vance County had seen the same thing when they saw a black man elected to the position of Sheriff. The position of power which had always been the hammer of the law that oppressed them. But this was so much more. This was enough to see that moment. "Now let thy servant depart in peace for I have seen with mine own eyes the deliverance of my people."
One of the most difficult parts of the Christian story is that so often God is a minimalist. Oh, there are passages that talk about God pouring out his blessings "pressed down and overflowing," but there are just as many stories where all his disciples get is just a glimpse, just one look, just one moment, and it is enough.
The story does not say what made this child so different. There is no explanation as to what caught Simeon's and Anna' eyes, but suddenly there he was, and they were satisfied. Just the one look and they yearnings were fulfilled. They had seen the one who in whom God was acting to redeem his people.
For many of us it is a hard story to understand. Most of us are not looking or waiting for God to move in history with that kind of endurance. We expect our blessings from God on a much more immediate basis. We want God to do it now or the heck with it. We talk about wanting world peace or everybody to love everybody, but one looks long and hard for those for whom that hope is the central fact of their being. Nor is our longing for peace as corporate at Simeon's and Anna"s. Most of the time my longings and passions are for a much smaller group. Nor is it likely that we would feel like we had received what we were waiting for if all we got was a glimpse of a baby.
But maybe we did get a picture of that kind of moment in the faces of those African American Senior Citizens who struggled to get to the polls this November and who, on Election night as Obama stood on that stage, had tears streaming down their faces. All their lives they had waited and hoped for the coming of the day that they would see a black person elected as President. Vance County had seen the same thing when they saw a black man elected to the position of Sheriff. The position of power which had always been the hammer of the law that oppressed them. But this was so much more. This was enough to see that moment. "Now let thy servant depart in peace for I have seen with mine own eyes the deliverance of my people."
One of the most difficult parts of the Christian story is that so often God is a minimalist. Oh, there are passages that talk about God pouring out his blessings "pressed down and overflowing," but there are just as many stories where all his disciples get is just a glimpse, just one look, just one moment, and it is enough.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Which is the greater evil?
Jesus was at a party and this woman, which all commentaries suggest was a "lady of the evening," came in and washed his feet with her tears and dried his feet with her hair. According to the story, that act evoked a massive discussion about the purity of Jesus and his prophetic powers because he did not recognize who she was and he allowed her to do those things. But Jesus turned that discussion into a debate about who has the greatest sins, and who gets forgiven more, and who might love more. Jesus says that the woman, whose sins were many, had been forgiven much, so loved Jesus much. The people at the party did not think they had sinned much, so did not need to be forgiven much and so did not love Jesus much.
This question about "which is the greater evil?" flashed to the top of the screen this week as the debate about the evil of one person's homosexuality raged in one place and the report of the fraud of Bernard Madoff was being reported in another place. Which is the greater evil? One person's personal sexual activity or one person's deceit, fraud, and greed. Who has done the most harm to life, to others, to society, to the whole work of doing good?
The Bible does call them both sins. The list of things that are contrary to the will and providence of God include both the homosexual activities and the greed, false witness, the stealing, and fraud. But certainly the actions of Madoff are far more evil and destructive than one person's sexual activities. Certainly the impact of the deceit, the betrayals, the destruction of so many charitable foundatons, the fraud that involves major banks from across Europe far exceeds the impact of one person's lesbian encounters. Madoff is a Jew and he has ripped off and destroyed a vast number of charitable foundations which had been established to help Jewish people.
The Bible does call them both sin, but Jesus suggests that there are some evils that are greater than other evils. The Catholic church has categories of sins. They are both sins, but the fraud of Madoff is certain greater than the sin of one person's homosexual life style. But you would never know it from the preaching of the Christian community. The fraud may get mentioned once or twice, but the sin of homosexuality will be a constant part of the preaching in many congregations. The evil of homosexuality will be forever mentioned, but there will be little mention or focus on the sin of greed, stealing, fraud, and bearing false witness. There will be little preaching against the greed that motivated Madoff; little preaching about the greed for greater and greater returns that brought so many willing people to his funds; little preaching about the greed, self-centeredness, betrayals, that allowed Madoff to carry out this deceit and exploitation of his Jewish friends and foundations.
Lets see the sin of one person with another person of the same sex or the sin of destroying more than 50 billion dollars in investments and altering the lives of hundreds of people, foundations and European banks? Now let me see which one should I preach about? Which is the greater evil?
This question about "which is the greater evil?" flashed to the top of the screen this week as the debate about the evil of one person's homosexuality raged in one place and the report of the fraud of Bernard Madoff was being reported in another place. Which is the greater evil? One person's personal sexual activity or one person's deceit, fraud, and greed. Who has done the most harm to life, to others, to society, to the whole work of doing good?
The Bible does call them both sins. The list of things that are contrary to the will and providence of God include both the homosexual activities and the greed, false witness, the stealing, and fraud. But certainly the actions of Madoff are far more evil and destructive than one person's sexual activities. Certainly the impact of the deceit, the betrayals, the destruction of so many charitable foundatons, the fraud that involves major banks from across Europe far exceeds the impact of one person's lesbian encounters. Madoff is a Jew and he has ripped off and destroyed a vast number of charitable foundations which had been established to help Jewish people.
The Bible does call them both sin, but Jesus suggests that there are some evils that are greater than other evils. The Catholic church has categories of sins. They are both sins, but the fraud of Madoff is certain greater than the sin of one person's homosexual life style. But you would never know it from the preaching of the Christian community. The fraud may get mentioned once or twice, but the sin of homosexuality will be a constant part of the preaching in many congregations. The evil of homosexuality will be forever mentioned, but there will be little mention or focus on the sin of greed, stealing, fraud, and bearing false witness. There will be little preaching against the greed that motivated Madoff; little preaching about the greed for greater and greater returns that brought so many willing people to his funds; little preaching about the greed, self-centeredness, betrayals, that allowed Madoff to carry out this deceit and exploitation of his Jewish friends and foundations.
Lets see the sin of one person with another person of the same sex or the sin of destroying more than 50 billion dollars in investments and altering the lives of hundreds of people, foundations and European banks? Now let me see which one should I preach about? Which is the greater evil?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
A New Christmas Pageant
William Muehl, a teacher at Yale Divinity School, had a great story about a Christmas pageant that had three Mary's and the climax of the story was when one of the children could not find her position yelled, "All the damn angels are covering up the spots." So local conditions have a way of changing the Christmas pageant. The selection of the family for the holy family, the family with the youngest baby, resulted in a new reality for a Christmas pageant.
The new discovery of theological import at the First United Methodist Church in Henderson, which I attended this last Sunday. Seems in their Christmas pageant they came to the Holy Family. Here came Mary with a baby, that is in the script, but then here came Joseph with the older brother. I have heard of multiple Mary's (kind of like the Trinity) but never before had I heard that Virgin Mary had had a baby before Jesus. So the "big brother" present a whole new range of theological issues. The Church Fathers never touched it as far as I know. So we now have a whole new theological debate before us. They have managed to keep the surprise in Christmas.
The new discovery of theological import at the First United Methodist Church in Henderson, which I attended this last Sunday. Seems in their Christmas pageant they came to the Holy Family. Here came Mary with a baby, that is in the script, but then here came Joseph with the older brother. I have heard of multiple Mary's (kind of like the Trinity) but never before had I heard that Virgin Mary had had a baby before Jesus. So the "big brother" present a whole new range of theological issues. The Church Fathers never touched it as far as I know. So we now have a whole new theological debate before us. They have managed to keep the surprise in Christmas.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A Small Christmas
There ought to be something grand and revolutionary about Christmas. The story talks about Angels, Kings coming long way, and Herod wipes out an entire generation of two year olds. The cry is "Peace on Earth, Good Will towards humanity." There has to be something amazing and unbelievable. That God would come to visit earth in a form that humanity could experience. Dorothy Sayers, who wrote wonderful mystery stories, said that the Christian story was the most amazing story ever told. She marveled at the ability of so many of us preacher to make that amazing story boring.
And that is just thing that strikes me so amazing. That we have this world changing story: an overthrow of the powerful, the disregarding of the wealthy, the pious being embarrassed, the lowly being welcomed as aristocracy. Yet we keep reducing it to a story about God wanting to make each of us happy. God comes inviting us to join a mighty revolution, and then we turn that revolution into a message that God wants us all to be happy, prosperous, kind middle class citizens of our country. It is the Jesus coming into the country recruiting people for this movement to struggle to change the world and we keep preaching it as if it was an invitation to let God make us happy, contented and cooperative citizens of the very world he wants to overthrow. The dynamic summons of Christmas is reduced to a be kind to your brothers and sisters of Kindergarten teachers. We need a larger Christmas.
And that is just thing that strikes me so amazing. That we have this world changing story: an overthrow of the powerful, the disregarding of the wealthy, the pious being embarrassed, the lowly being welcomed as aristocracy. Yet we keep reducing it to a story about God wanting to make each of us happy. God comes inviting us to join a mighty revolution, and then we turn that revolution into a message that God wants us all to be happy, prosperous, kind middle class citizens of our country. It is the Jesus coming into the country recruiting people for this movement to struggle to change the world and we keep preaching it as if it was an invitation to let God make us happy, contented and cooperative citizens of the very world he wants to overthrow. The dynamic summons of Christmas is reduced to a be kind to your brothers and sisters of Kindergarten teachers. We need a larger Christmas.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Private Matter?
Private Matter?
It is a very old issue. I am old enough to remember when the liberal left was marching and calling on people to be Christian and to stop the war in Vietnam and to integrate the South, and people were telling them to keep their religion to themselves. “Religion is a private matter.” I have watched as the Religious Right has grown and attempted to impose its religious view of life on society and have heard the left claim that “Religion is a private matter.”
The question was presented again recently in the stories about medical doctors who will not give out birth control pills, who will not help with contraceptive information, who lecture their patience on sexual conduct when the patients ask for birth control pills. The doctors affirm that they are practicing their religious convictions and have a right to bring their practice of medicine in accordance with their religious and ethical views. Those who believe this is inappropriate behavior suggest, “Religion is a private matter.”
It is not a new issue. G.K. Chesterton in his essay on August 16, 1919 right after World War I wrestled with the same statement. Religion is a private matter in that the convictions, affirmations, values have to soak into the core of a person for them to be real. But “… if he (the maker of the statement) means that a man’s religion cannot have any effect on his citizenship, or on the commonwealth of which he is a citizen, he (the maker of the statement) escapes from being platitudinous by being preposterous.”
So that if religion is a reality in a person’s life, it will be a reality in the public life of that person. But the more difficult part of that reality is how does the public expression of religion interact with the common life of others who have their own expression of religion or lack of it.
If the doctor were in private practice by herself, then it would seem acceptable for her to say that she does not approve of the practice of birth control, and refuse to prescribe contraceptives. It seems to be that it gets a little more complicated, if she is a partner in a medical practice in which the other doctors do prescribe contraceptives. It is even more complicated; it seems to me, when the doctor is in a hospital that follows the guidelines of the American Medical Association, which says they believe in providing good health care for all people including help with reproductive medicine.
There are no easy solutions to the struggles of private ethical behavior and demands and expectations of the general public. On this small issue, it would seem to me that the provision of contraceptives and birth control measures would be much preferred to the alternative of abortions. The person who asks for birth control pills has already indicated that there is or maybe sexual activity and the prevention of conception would seem to be more moral than the destruction of a fetus.
It is a very old issue. I am old enough to remember when the liberal left was marching and calling on people to be Christian and to stop the war in Vietnam and to integrate the South, and people were telling them to keep their religion to themselves. “Religion is a private matter.” I have watched as the Religious Right has grown and attempted to impose its religious view of life on society and have heard the left claim that “Religion is a private matter.”
The question was presented again recently in the stories about medical doctors who will not give out birth control pills, who will not help with contraceptive information, who lecture their patience on sexual conduct when the patients ask for birth control pills. The doctors affirm that they are practicing their religious convictions and have a right to bring their practice of medicine in accordance with their religious and ethical views. Those who believe this is inappropriate behavior suggest, “Religion is a private matter.”
It is not a new issue. G.K. Chesterton in his essay on August 16, 1919 right after World War I wrestled with the same statement. Religion is a private matter in that the convictions, affirmations, values have to soak into the core of a person for them to be real. But “… if he (the maker of the statement) means that a man’s religion cannot have any effect on his citizenship, or on the commonwealth of which he is a citizen, he (the maker of the statement) escapes from being platitudinous by being preposterous.”
So that if religion is a reality in a person’s life, it will be a reality in the public life of that person. But the more difficult part of that reality is how does the public expression of religion interact with the common life of others who have their own expression of religion or lack of it.
If the doctor were in private practice by herself, then it would seem acceptable for her to say that she does not approve of the practice of birth control, and refuse to prescribe contraceptives. It seems to be that it gets a little more complicated, if she is a partner in a medical practice in which the other doctors do prescribe contraceptives. It is even more complicated; it seems to me, when the doctor is in a hospital that follows the guidelines of the American Medical Association, which says they believe in providing good health care for all people including help with reproductive medicine.
There are no easy solutions to the struggles of private ethical behavior and demands and expectations of the general public. On this small issue, it would seem to me that the provision of contraceptives and birth control measures would be much preferred to the alternative of abortions. The person who asks for birth control pills has already indicated that there is or maybe sexual activity and the prevention of conception would seem to be more moral than the destruction of a fetus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)