The email edition of the Scotsman newspaper from Edinburgh had a story about Halloween costumes. The headline said that nobody wanted their children to grow up to be skeletons, ghosts, or dragons. This year children were being sent out in costumes of lords, lawyers, ambassadors and doctors. The idea being, so it seems, to plant in the mind of the child an ambition. As I understand the old Halloween origins these costumes would be a dramatic change in purpose of the holiday.
I have no way of knowing if my information is correct, but when I did look into this holiday, I found that Halloween was basically a community rite of confession. On this time of All Saints Day, the fear was that the spirits of the dead would rise up and roam the world. They would be coming back to "get even." The restless spirits of the dead would come back to earth to settle up scores with those who offended them in life. The spirits of the dead came back seeking out those who had "done them wrong." The living would put out lights and scary objects in hopes of keeping the spirits away. The living would put on masks and costumes in hopes that the disguises would make it hard for the spirits to find them. The spirits of the dead do not like bright lights, we are told. The masks and costumes would make it hard for the spirits to find the people they were looking for. The Spirits of the dead only had a very brief time to look so any delay was welcomed.
So in a sense, to put on a mask, to put out lights, to wear a custom was a confession that one had done somebody wrong. At least, it was the fear that the dead spirits might have a grudge against you. To fear the return of the dead was to acknowledge that one had done some things that the dead might not have liked and had taken exception to. In the end it was to affirm that "all of us have sinned" and that we were frightened by the thought of the revenge of the dead.
That is what I read when I studied the history of Halloween. But Halloween has taken a beating over the last forty years. All those conservative Christians who believed it was fraternizing with the devil. All those link it with Thanksgiving and make it a find of fall festival. Now to suggest it is an early career indicator. It has come a long way, baby.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Not that easy to say.
The other day I saw a quote that said, "Forgiveness was too easy." That quote has been troubling me for several days. My suspicion is that whoever said that had never tried it. In fact, my suspicion is that the speaker had probably never said "I'm sorry" either. Because while we try to believe that "sticks and stones may break our bones, and word can never harm us." Sticks and stones are a lot easier to take than to say or hearing certain words. The human interaction between saying "I am sorry" and "I forgive you" is probably the hardest human transaction.
Two powerful examples of the difficulty have been shown in recent movies. There was a movie, The Flash of Genius, about the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. He was so excited about his idea and he showed the big three auto industry. They smiled, stole his idea, and refused to do business with him. He fought in court for years, and the night before the jury would decide the companies offer him thirty million dollars to drop the suit. He refused. He said all he ever had wanted was for them to acknowledge that it was his idea, that they had stolen his idea, and they were sorry. They had refused. The jury found in his favor and he got twelve million dollars. But the auto industry never admitted the thief or apologized.
The current movie, Food, Inc, has the story of a woman who is advocating better food inspection and more health restriction on the food industry because her son Kevin died of ecoli bacteria. She and many others have been pushing a Kevin Law in congress. She said all she wants is for the food industry to admit that some of their food has problems and to say they are sorry. They have been fighting that law for years. It still has not passed.
But the same refusal to say "I'm sorry" and for the other to say "I forgive you" is seen in most divorce cases. The same refusal to apologize and to say "I'm sorry" and to forgive is seen in most parent-teenager estrangement. The same refusal to say "I'm sorry" is seen in the refusal of countries to ask forgiveness for starting wars or for invasions. Only recently has the Japanese government apologized for their part in World War II.
That the whole transaction of confession and forgiveness is not easy is part of the message of the Christian faith. If it had been easy to achieve, there would have been no need for a Cross.
Two powerful examples of the difficulty have been shown in recent movies. There was a movie, The Flash of Genius, about the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. He was so excited about his idea and he showed the big three auto industry. They smiled, stole his idea, and refused to do business with him. He fought in court for years, and the night before the jury would decide the companies offer him thirty million dollars to drop the suit. He refused. He said all he ever had wanted was for them to acknowledge that it was his idea, that they had stolen his idea, and they were sorry. They had refused. The jury found in his favor and he got twelve million dollars. But the auto industry never admitted the thief or apologized.
The current movie, Food, Inc, has the story of a woman who is advocating better food inspection and more health restriction on the food industry because her son Kevin died of ecoli bacteria. She and many others have been pushing a Kevin Law in congress. She said all she wants is for the food industry to admit that some of their food has problems and to say they are sorry. They have been fighting that law for years. It still has not passed.
But the same refusal to say "I'm sorry" and for the other to say "I forgive you" is seen in most divorce cases. The same refusal to apologize and to say "I'm sorry" and to forgive is seen in most parent-teenager estrangement. The same refusal to say "I'm sorry" is seen in the refusal of countries to ask forgiveness for starting wars or for invasions. Only recently has the Japanese government apologized for their part in World War II.
That the whole transaction of confession and forgiveness is not easy is part of the message of the Christian faith. If it had been easy to achieve, there would have been no need for a Cross.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Theology and Science
One of the guest lecturers at the Yale Convocation this year is a Dr. Michael Welker whose interest is in the dialogue between science and religion. That is a dialogue that has never had a very smooth experience. Dr. Welker indicated that some of the problems are that both side celebrate even the smallest interest in each other, but never take that interest seriously; that both sides have very poor understanding of each other; and they have a very hard time coming to common ground to discuss.
In his first lecture Dr. Welker talked some about the creation question.He spent a great deal of time on the Genesis creation account in Genesis 1. Of course, he talked about the problems of how do you have light and night without sun and moon, and some of the other more traditional problems. But the found to his satisfaction some very basic positions which would allow the discussion of evolution and human dominance in creation with science.
The second lecture was concerned about finding some common ground with the question of who are human beings. Theology has to have an explanation of human life that can talk with science about the human being. Again he tried to clear away a lot of simplistic solutions to this question. He was eager to affirm that the human experience is amazing creative, diverse and complex. Then he suggested that St. Paul's works provided us a starting point for dealing with the complexities of human life. He went through all of Paul's words like body, flesh, spirit, mind, soul, heart, and pointed out that Paul did not have these as simple one sided concepts. But he suggested that understanding them gave us a starting point for dialogue.
It was this second lecture that really gave me some concern about the major topic. If we are going to have a discussion between theology and science, then it seems to me that we have to have a discussion first with ourselves about theology. Because while the first lecture might well have been accepted by the Jewish and Muslim theologians as it was rooted in the Old Testament, the second lecture immediately made "theology" a captive of Christianity. How do we have a right to enter into that discussion with science as the only theology? Certainly the questions of origin, purpose, and end of life are questions science and "non-science" need to discuss. There are dimensions in human life that are mysteries that are not fully explained by science descriptions of life, but isn't there some need to try to look beyond the divisions of religions to get to a larger theological base to begin discussion with science?
In his first lecture Dr. Welker talked some about the creation question.He spent a great deal of time on the Genesis creation account in Genesis 1. Of course, he talked about the problems of how do you have light and night without sun and moon, and some of the other more traditional problems. But the found to his satisfaction some very basic positions which would allow the discussion of evolution and human dominance in creation with science.
The second lecture was concerned about finding some common ground with the question of who are human beings. Theology has to have an explanation of human life that can talk with science about the human being. Again he tried to clear away a lot of simplistic solutions to this question. He was eager to affirm that the human experience is amazing creative, diverse and complex. Then he suggested that St. Paul's works provided us a starting point for dealing with the complexities of human life. He went through all of Paul's words like body, flesh, spirit, mind, soul, heart, and pointed out that Paul did not have these as simple one sided concepts. But he suggested that understanding them gave us a starting point for dialogue.
It was this second lecture that really gave me some concern about the major topic. If we are going to have a discussion between theology and science, then it seems to me that we have to have a discussion first with ourselves about theology. Because while the first lecture might well have been accepted by the Jewish and Muslim theologians as it was rooted in the Old Testament, the second lecture immediately made "theology" a captive of Christianity. How do we have a right to enter into that discussion with science as the only theology? Certainly the questions of origin, purpose, and end of life are questions science and "non-science" need to discuss. There are dimensions in human life that are mysteries that are not fully explained by science descriptions of life, but isn't there some need to try to look beyond the divisions of religions to get to a larger theological base to begin discussion with science?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Two Kinds of Mysteries
If I want a great, snappy read on an airplane or on vacation, I can always get a Robert Parker Spencer paperback. If I want a little more complexity, then one of the Alphabet mysteries or Hellerman paperbacks will work. There are lots of other great writers whose works are sold as mystery books. If I want a more realistic mystery in which there are solutions but not justice or closure, then Ian Rankin is my favorite. These are the mysteries that most of us enjoy.They are the mysteries that most of our television programs pursue. They are the mysteries we expect to be solved. Somebody done somebody wrong, and we expect to find out who by the end of the book or the show.
These are the kind of mysteries that science seeks to provide solutions for. These are the mysteries of medicine in which there is a disease and we want research to find out what causes these diseases and what can prevent them. There is a problem and we expect that given enough time and enough intelligence there will be an explanation and a solution.
But there is another kind of mystery which fascinates us all. There is the mystery that always grows larger rather than comes to a solution. There is the mystery that captivates and enchants and never comes to the end. John Denver said "Life ain't nothing but a funny, funny riddle?" and that is one of the mysteries that is never "solved." There is the mystery of the human personality. We are forever meeting people who live next door to us and suddenly they do something so strange we are simple amazed. All the neighbors say, "She was a very quiet and responsible citizen. We never expected that from her." Try as we may, we could never find out what caused that to happen. Isn't that part of our fascination with sports because they are always a mystery? Recently Serena Williams lost to a qualifier and Serena said,"I played against a woman who played better than she had ever played before."
For many people some of the great classical music is a mystery. They may know the score inside and out, but every time they hear it they hear something different. They are moved by a different section. The piece is a mystery that keeps opening up before them dimensions that they had not known were there before.
To be reminded that there are these two different kinds of mystery is necessary when we come to talk about the religious dimension of life. The question of God is a mystery which some people want to solve and to settle. But the question of God and the whole spiritual dimension of life is the mystery which ought to keep leading us into new questions, new wonders, new concerns, new hopes, and new vistas.
There are the mysteries that can be solved and the mysteries that only lead to more mysteries. The question of God is the mystery that leads to every other mystery.
These are the kind of mysteries that science seeks to provide solutions for. These are the mysteries of medicine in which there is a disease and we want research to find out what causes these diseases and what can prevent them. There is a problem and we expect that given enough time and enough intelligence there will be an explanation and a solution.
But there is another kind of mystery which fascinates us all. There is the mystery that always grows larger rather than comes to a solution. There is the mystery that captivates and enchants and never comes to the end. John Denver said "Life ain't nothing but a funny, funny riddle?" and that is one of the mysteries that is never "solved." There is the mystery of the human personality. We are forever meeting people who live next door to us and suddenly they do something so strange we are simple amazed. All the neighbors say, "She was a very quiet and responsible citizen. We never expected that from her." Try as we may, we could never find out what caused that to happen. Isn't that part of our fascination with sports because they are always a mystery? Recently Serena Williams lost to a qualifier and Serena said,"I played against a woman who played better than she had ever played before."
For many people some of the great classical music is a mystery. They may know the score inside and out, but every time they hear it they hear something different. They are moved by a different section. The piece is a mystery that keeps opening up before them dimensions that they had not known were there before.
To be reminded that there are these two different kinds of mystery is necessary when we come to talk about the religious dimension of life. The question of God is a mystery which some people want to solve and to settle. But the question of God and the whole spiritual dimension of life is the mystery which ought to keep leading us into new questions, new wonders, new concerns, new hopes, and new vistas.
There are the mysteries that can be solved and the mysteries that only lead to more mysteries. The question of God is the mystery that leads to every other mystery.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Sad Day for Preaching
The news article I read said that there were 450 people who left that day. 450 former members of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida left that church and started a new church. Dr. James Kennedy was always one of my enemies. He was a Presbyterian minister who shared with me the name Christian and yet who stood for and promoted everything I was against. He was successful in the categories of the world. My father-in-law loved him. He had a t.v. program. He had more than 2,000 members and he was considered one of the bedrocks of the conservative evangelical Christian political block.
But he died and the church called a new minister. They called one of the grandsons of Billy Graham. They called a young man who had all of the same theological positions. The article said that there was not a hair's breadth of difference between the new minister and Dr. Kennedy. But more than 400 of the former members left to start a new church because they could not stand the new minister.
They could not stand the style of the new minister. It was all about style. Content did not matter. The new minister did not wear a pulpit robe. The new minister sometimes had not shaved for a couple of days. It is in all of the movies and television programs. The stars have a couple of days growth of beard. The new minister did not always stand for formality and traditions of the old church. The theology did not matter. It was all about style.
While I do not endorse or support the theology of that congregation, there is a great sadness that the content of preaching is here made secondary to the style of preaching. One would have hoped that people come to hear the Word of God preached to them and would rejoice if they have it preached to them. Regardless of whether it is in royal robes or a Bermuda shorts. But more than 450 members of one of the strongest conservative church believes that style is more important than content. Or so it appears from the newspaper article.
It would seem to me that it is a sad day for preaching.
But he died and the church called a new minister. They called one of the grandsons of Billy Graham. They called a young man who had all of the same theological positions. The article said that there was not a hair's breadth of difference between the new minister and Dr. Kennedy. But more than 400 of the former members left to start a new church because they could not stand the new minister.
They could not stand the style of the new minister. It was all about style. Content did not matter. The new minister did not wear a pulpit robe. The new minister sometimes had not shaved for a couple of days. It is in all of the movies and television programs. The stars have a couple of days growth of beard. The new minister did not always stand for formality and traditions of the old church. The theology did not matter. It was all about style.
While I do not endorse or support the theology of that congregation, there is a great sadness that the content of preaching is here made secondary to the style of preaching. One would have hoped that people come to hear the Word of God preached to them and would rejoice if they have it preached to them. Regardless of whether it is in royal robes or a Bermuda shorts. But more than 450 members of one of the strongest conservative church believes that style is more important than content. Or so it appears from the newspaper article.
It would seem to me that it is a sad day for preaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)