nate's incoherent babble

What does Christ have to offer a post-Christian world?

2011-12-20T00:48:00.001-06:00

This is a reflection on the Pew research which shows a diminishment of global Christian population share from 35% in 1910 and 32% in 2010. At first, if one looks at raw numbers, it appears as if Christianity is growing like crazy. This is because there were only 612 million Christians in 1910, but there are now 2.18 billion: An apparent increase of 353% in 100 years! However, in that same time world population has increased 383% from 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010.

This is interesting because Christianity is supposed to be a growth religion- a missionary religion- not a maintenence religion. This stat does not seem problematic until one factors this lack of statistical increase compared to actual population growth. It shows that even though more total people are Christians, the message and vitality of Christianity is slipping as a proportion of culture as a whole.

See the Pew Religion research stats here: http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Global-Christianity-worlds-christian-population.aspx?src=prc-headline

Even if one juxtaposes the diminution of Christian dominance in Europe and the USA with the rapid growth of Christianity in Asia and Africa, the problem still stands. For on one hand: What culture has not been evangelized more, and in more ways, than the USA? And yet, the "market share" of Christianity here has STILL decreased from well over 90% in 1900 to just under 80% today.

And in many (not all) African and Asian countries where Christianity is growing, it must be noted that Christianity is socially favored and politically expedient in those cultures, in similar ways to how Christianity was culturally favored during the epoch of European "Christendom". In a century or two, when Christianity is no longer a novel or liberating force in those countries, but rather the religion of status quo, will it also cease to grow? As sociologist of religion Philip Jenkins writes in several works- notably "The Lost History of Christianity"- the fate of Christian churches and Christian populations is often tied to being on the "winning" side of political and cultural power. When Christianity ceases to be tied to the powerful, it historically has died out (especially in Asia in from 700-1400 CE).

So, if one looks at the last century of statistics in an admittedly pessimistic way (as I am now), it seems like Christianity as an organized cultural form is on a long spiral downward. This means that the discredited "secularization" hypothesis of the 1960-70's (which said that all advanced societies were heading toward irreligion as spiritual categories were filled by post-enlightenment thought and practice) is not entirely discredited. It may not be that people are leaving the Church in droves to be atheist or agnostic, but it does appear a slow statistical trickle of Christians are leaving for something else.

So, if we live in a world that is slowly becoming post-Christian- at least post-Christian in a communally organized sense- what does Christ have to offer that merits a reversal of this trend? Note I say Christ (the person, and the organic body through which he works today) and not Christianity (that cultural instrument which has allied with political powers and cultural principalities throughout history).

What does Christ have to offer a post-Christian world?

I want to hunch the outline of an answer to this question. And note that this is a hunch, not a well researched hypothesis, and an outline, not a nuanced exposition.

My hunch comes from the following sources: The perpetual discomfort that sensitive people have felt as regards cutthroat consumer capitalism, ranging from the anti-slavery movement of the 1800's to the social gospel movement of the early 1900's to the hippie protests of the 1960's to the Occupy movement today; The constant drive that cultures seem to exhibit toward a recognition of the sacredness of human life, and the rights and responsibilities that entails, from the women's movement of the early 1900's to the civil rights movements of the mid-1900's to the Arab Spring of today; The revolutionary communal movements of the late 1800's-mid 1900's, which led to a brief flourishing of socialist and communist states, but which have collapsed completely (as the Soviet empire) or partially (as in the socialist-tinged capitalism of Europe and China).

What I see in all of these diverse movements is a general drift toward a dual recognition of the sacredness of the individual person, as well as the need for interdependence as a community, in which all work together, all are valued, all are responsible, and none can manipulate, control, use, or abuse "the Other". With this dual personal/communal ethic comes the economic ramifications of distributive justice, in which the just society makes sure no one is left out in the process of rewarding the achievements of the leaders of society. This distributive justice is the social outworking of interpersonal love: A love which values and welcomes "the Other" in whatever forms she or he may present themselves to us.

So human culture seems to have an inherent yet flawed, identifiable yet stuttering, movement toward the following values:
- Personal sanctity
- Communal interdependence
- Distributive justice
- Interpersonal Love

What does Christ have to do with this striving? Put simply: Everything.

I would argue that the gradual realization of these values is what Christ's Holy Spirit is pushing God's people toward throughout the entirety of the Scriptures. I would say that these values are exactly what Jesus lived and taught. And I would go further and say that Jesus' bodily resurrection is a kind of "down payment" or promise that it is precisely these values that win in the end. These values are vindicated by Christ's defeat of death, and thus we can stake our life on these values.

Furthermore, the trajectory of Christ's life and teachings, as well as the later New Testament, as well as the great Ecumenical Councils of the Church, point us to a God who is the Source and Wellspring of these values. In fact, these values are a reflection of the mutually self-giving, other-centered, interpenetrating Love which is the eternal nature of the Triune God.

SINCE God is, eternally, three sacred Persons, sharing in an utterly interdependent life together, as they distribute the nature of God equally to all three, by sharing in the same Love, THEN we have an eternal basis for striving after the values of Personal Sanctity, Communal Interdependence, Distributive justice, and interpersonal Love.

I would go on to argue that the reason why the great socialist and communist states of the 20th century failed was, at least in part, because they did not have this metaphysical grounding in God as the source of their communal life. As a result, they had to deify someone or something to take the place of the vacuum of God in the center of their "political ontology" (to borrow from Zizek). Thus they deified the State, or the Party, or the Great Leader, with disastrous consequences which destroyed the sanctity of the person (in mass killings of political dissidents) and interpersonal love (in the paranoia of the police state). These God-absent dreams of a worldly utopia rightfully imploded under the weight of their own inefficiency and injustice.

As a result we have been left to the whims of an equally monstrous consumer capitalism which tries to uphold a charade of personal sanctity (under the mask of greater personal choice and more personal wealth) by destroying all communal interdependence and loyalty to anything bigger than our own selfish desire to consume. The regnant capitalist system uses our God-given desire for freedom and choice, and turns into a system of social control, in which we neatly conform to marketed identities supplied by slave laborers across the ocean, while corporations who are treated like persons exist as parasites sucking out the life of both consumer and producer. All of this while religions of every type are robbed of their prophetic voice by being made into yet another "lifestyle choice" for the individual consumer who goes "church shopping" just like they go shopping for food, clothes, or entertainment.

But, the system is not sustainable, and the cracks are beginning to show. We see financial meltdowns, protests in the streets, debt crises big enough to wipe out national economies, and crises of identity that leave people feeling restless, meaningless, hopeless, and helpless. We see the problems of capitalism, but there seems to be no other solution. The socialist systems have all imploded. And how can we bite the hand that feeds us, or refuse the very tit we suck from?

Yet, just because the socialist movements were often anti-God, we cannot therefore fail to recognize the God-inspired hopes for justice and community embedded within them. Nor can we fail to see why thinkers such as Marx so naively rejected God in the first place: The name of God and the claims of God were so long used to justify oppression and to oppose movement toward justice that it seemed to these thinkers that the only way to get to justice was to jettison God. And in this, at least part of the blame rests squarely on the Church for colluding with the powers and principalities of the world to make God's name a synonym for oppression and abuse. Following Paul, I say: As it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Rom. 2:24 paraphrasing Isa. 52.5 and Eze. 36.23).

And, as I have shown above, this drive toward God's Love and Justice is still alive today, and still witnessed by mass movements that dream of such Love and Justice. And God's Name is still used as a justification for violence and oppression by Conservative Christian Capitalist politicians in the USA, by Islamic Fascist Terrorists in the Middle East, and by homophobic zealots in Africa.

If we can rescue the Name of God- the Name of God we find in Christ- from cultural slavery to power, oppression, and violence, then the Word of Christ can speak something new to post-Christian culture. I say "If we can rescue" as if we have the power to do it, and we don't. Rather, if we just let Christ be Christ and speak as Christ in Love and judgment upon our culture, then we can hear afresh the Word of God that has been held in cultural oppression.

What Christ has to offer a post-Christian world is precisely a third alternative beyond the traditional "right/left" or "capitalist/socialist" or "conservative/progressive" dichotomies. Christ offers us the very model of servant-leadership which embodies the values which we strive after. But beyond this, embedded in Christ's Life, is the very God who is Love. In Christ's life, death, and resurrection we are offered a window to see into the very life of God. And what we see in God is the Trinity: A God who is the very goal we are striving after when we strive for love, justice, community and individuality.

This Triune God who is a community beckons us, through Christ, by the Spirit, to enter into communion with Godself. This God becomes the Source and Ground for our communal life together, a Source which was denied by Marx and parodied by the great communist states. It is ultimately because they cut themselves off from this Source that they failed in bringing about the values they desired.

And this leads to perhaps the greatest thing that Christ offers a post-Christian world. It is something even beyond the Trinitarian moral and social values outlined above. It is something we badly need, and without it, the cycle of personal guilt and social violence will keep spiraling into destruction. It is forgiveness. We need an ontological, metaphysical grounding for the practice of forgiveness. We need someone who can assure us that forgiveness is really available, really worth it, and really conforms to the nature of reality.

And we find this in Christ. In his resurrection, we see that the Love of the Triune God is stronger than death, violence, or guilt. We see that God can actually heal death, violence, and guilt. And if we are going to "right the wrongs" of culture and re-build something that works, we are going to need tons of forgiveness: For our own mistakes and the injustice of others. Only through this forgiveness, which is only offered through Christ, can we find the strength to reconcile with each other, and begin again to work for justice and love.

Through Christ we can forgive. We can return to the Triune Source. We can find the Divine grounding for our hopes and dreams. And in so doing, we can work together to create the kind of community Jesus taught and lived, a community he called simply "The Kingdom of God".

Remembering Hitch

2011-12-16T08:28:00.001-06:00

RIP Christopher Hitchens. May Christ have mercy on him. He was a good man. Theologically misguided, but fundamentally driven by a sense of justice that is not accounted for by his own worldview. I will miss the challenge his writings brought to me.

http://m.npr.org/story/143595854?url=/2011/12/16/143595854/writer-christopher-hitchens-dies

On weight lifting when you are older

2011-11-27T16:08:00.003-06:00

A friend of mine who recently lost a bunch of weight asked me about working out. He asked me because I used to give advice on how to work out when I was younger. You see, I used to be a college football player and power lifter. And like many who lifted heavy iron when younger, once "real life" set in (including marriage, kids, grad schools, jobs, and "adult" responsibilities), I have fallen out of shape, and fallen into being about 50-70 lbs over-weight.

This summer I made a pretty good start at loosing weight. I lost about 15 lbs and have kept it off for 6 months. But what I did that has helped even more is that I have kept working out on weights and cardio for the last 6 months consistently. It's a personal best since college. I have gained a bunch of strength and muscle tone back (although nowhere near as much as I once had).

But I also had to re-train on how to work out as a late-30-something with less testosterone, and far less free time, than the collegiate version of myself, along with several nagging injuries left over from high school and college sports. In particular, I have a rotator cup that is glitchy, a lower back that is much more prone to injury, and tennis elbow from typing too much (let me get this straight: Powercleans with 200-300 lbs when I was a teen didn't tear up my forearms, but grad school typing did???).

Anyway, my re-immersion into working out on a weekly basis has brought me a tiny bit of wisdom I shared with my friend. And now I guess I will share it with everyone else too…

Here are five principles I try and follow working out:

1. Try and work bigger muscle groups first, and move to smaller muscles (generally, this means starting with Leg/Groin area, then chest and back, then shoulders, then arms and calves, ending with abs).

2. Work harder in less time. I prefer to do 1-2 sets per exercise, but go to absolute failure on each set, rather than doing 3-5 sets and arbitrarily stopping at 10-12 reps. It is the last few reps that go to failure that cause the muscles to grow. I normally try to use a weight that will cause me to go to absolute failure in 12-18 reps, but I don't usually count reps. I just go until I can't push or pull it anymore.

Not counting reps (on most exercises) has been a big help to me. I find that I don't compete with myself at every workout, trying to get just one more rep on every set. Instead, not counting reps lets me focus more on the form of the exercise, rather than clawing to get some arbitrary number. Typically I will only count reps on one set of squats, chest, and back. Then I will base my workout weight for other exercises on what I can use for for 12-18 reps on that. Also, when I was younger the preferred rep range was 6-12 reps. That kind of weight injures me easily these days. Better to keep lighter, with better form.

3. A strong core (abs and lower back) will lead to a strong everything else. Thus, make sure you are doing your lower back and hamstring stretches, as well as crunches and superman exercises for basic core strength. My favorite core exercises are:
- Crunches [http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/RectusAbdominis/BWCrunch.html],
- Leg Lifts [http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/RectusAbdominis/BWLyingLegHipRaise.html],
- Superman [http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/ErectorSpinae/Superman.html],
- Side Bends [http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Obliques/DBSideBend.html]

4. Make use of compound exercises as much as possible. Compound exercises are those that use multiple muscle groups [such as squats or bench press], as opposed to isolation exercises that target only one muscle group [such as leg extensions or dumbbell flyes].

5. Good form trumps high weight. If you are using high weight and doing it with bad form, you are asking for an injury. Drop the weight down to make sure you do the right form, and do it to failure.

And a bonus 6th principle: As long as your knees and lower back are healthy, the SQUAT is the best full body exercise God has given to humanity. Especially the wide-stance, feet-facing-outward, squat-to-90-degrees kind of squat. The distribution of weight down your entire body hits every muscle group, and will cause toning and strength for every muscle group.

I also try to only do exercises I can do at home, or in ANY gym, using bodyweight or dumbbells. For squats I will use barbells because of the sheer weight involved for me. There are several reasons for this. First, there is something psychologically gratifying about lifting one's own body, or a set of weights, and seeing it move from your own effort. I get a lot more psychologically from having free weights in my hands or on my back than seeing a machine move. Second, dumbbells do not really require spotters to be safe. Even with barbell squats, you can just let the weight slip off your back if you get into trouble. However, if you are doing barbell bench or incline press, you can do real damage to yourself if you do not have a spotter. Third, you can literally find free weights anywhere. You don't have to rely on any special equipment only found in a few places. Fourth, free weights allow for you to use the right form for your body. Many machines can be wrong for your body bio-mechanically (especially if you have odd proportions, like my squatty legs and long torso!).

As far as nutrition goes, if you are going to start working out regularly, you need to work on getting protein in. I would suggest finding a WHEY protein powder that mixes easily and that you like the taste of. Then get a shaker or Nalgene bottle, and mix it into 8 oz of cold water or milk. You should be able to get 30-40grams of protein per serving that way, with few calories. If you are working out on a regular basis, you should probably aim at 0.5-1 gram of protein per pound of body weight if possible (so, for a 250 lb person, it would be 125-250g protein per day). if you are not working out regularly with weights, you don't need this much protein.

As far as getting ideas for exercises, I will give you my favorite routine in a second. But if you want a great website that offers a directory of exercises, AND how to do them correctly, I recommend:
http://www.exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html

That site also has some really good ideas for exercise routines. I would suggest a one-day, full-body exercise routine. Here are some good suggestions:

http://exrx.net/Workouts/Workout1LPP.html

Here are some other good suggestions from other sites:
http://www.muscleandstrength.com/workouts/dumbbell-only-home-or-gym-fullbody-workout.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/iovate5.htm

And a bit more advanced:
http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/forget-steroids-5-fullbody-workouts-for-serious-gains.html

And this guy is a little crazy (and a bit flamboyant), but he is an older bodybuilder who works mainly at home, and knows how to deal with lower back pain. He has some really good advice for the older weight lifter:
http://scoobysworkshop.com/

His page on lower back pain is darn-near gospel-truth. Great advice:
http://scoobysworkshop.com/preventing-lower-back-pain/

Finally, how would I put together a full body workout for a beginner? Something like this:

Full Body Workout using Bodyweight and Dumbbells (maybe Barbells too if you want):

A. Legs, Buttocks, Lower Back: Squats [Bodyweight, Dumbbell, or Barbell]: 2-3 sets x failure at 12-18 reps
B. Pecs, Frontal Deltoids: Incline Press or Bench Press [Dumbbell or Barbell]: 2-3 sets x failure at 12-18 reps

C. Upper Back, Lats: Pullups [Cheating or Assisted], or Bent Rows [Dumbbell or Barbell]: 2-3 sets x failure at 12-18 reps
D. Deltoids, Traps: Upright Rows or Deltoid Side Raises: 2-3 sets x failure at 12-18 reps

E. Hamstrings: Stiff-Leg Deadlifts focusing on Hamstring Stretch: 1-2 sets x failure at 12-18 reps
F. Calves: Calf Raises using Body Weight on Stair [Single leg or Double leg]: 1-2 sets x failure at 12-18 reps

G. Triceps: Reverse Dips or Narrow Grip Pushups: 1-2 sets x failure at 12-18 reps
H. Biceps: Dumbbell Curls: 1-2 sets x failure at 12-18 reps

I. Abdominals: Crunches and/or Leg Raises: 1-2 sets x failure at 12-18 reps
J. Lower Back: Superman: 1-2 sets x 3 reps x hold for 30-60 seconds per rep.

Notice the following:
- You can alternate or superset each of the paired exercises (A-B, C-D, etc.). They hit separate parts of the body, therefore you can do one set while the muscles of the other set recover. This will make your workout faster AND more aerobic.
- Exercises A-D require 2-3 sets because they are bigger muscles, while Exercises E-J require 1-2 sets because they deal with smaller muscles.
- If you don't have time for the full workout, you can split it into 2 days simply by doing A-D on Day 1 and E-J on Day 2.
- REST: I would rest or do cardio for at least 2 days after you get done with the routine. A teenager with tons of testosterone could probably do only 1 rest day in between workouts. But that ain't us anymore.

The workout I personally do is a variation of the above workout [and can be found at files.me.com/bostianbunch/5kfldq]. It includes a list of calories expended in working out and cardio, as well as a calorie list. I use it for diet as well. My diet was going great over the summer. Not so much during the school year. I also intentionally integrate spirituality and prayer into my workout routine, as is shown on the workout sheet. I often pray between sets (and sometimes during!) and use the workout as a time to meditate and intercede for others.

Must we become [worldview] Jews to become Christians?

2011-11-12T20:28:00.002-06:00

The following is a letter I wrote to Bishop NT Wright about his constant emphasis on the 1st Century Jewish background of the New Testament. I am a big admirer of Wright, and I think he is largely right on in his "New Perspective" on Paul, as well as his strong emphasis on Resurrection as THE Christian Hope. I think his emphasis on the historical and cultural context of the New Testament is also right and necessary. Yet, sadly, it is also inaccessible for most people. If he responds to this email, I will post the reply.
__________________________________________
Dear Bishop Wright,

Greetings from a long time admirer and reader of your works. I have made it through most of your 3 volume opus on Christian origins, and many of your other more popular works, as well as dozens of papers, articles, interviews, and recordings on the internet.

I am also an Episcopal priest who works with teens as a school chaplain and religion teacher (and formerly a college and youth minister). Over the years I have taken many of the ideas I first gained from you and implemented them for a much younger audience.

I finally have obtained a copy of "Justification" and am reading it. From my read this time, I had a question occur to me that has never occurred before. It could be asked of any of your works, really. It just became apparent to me with this book.

The question has to do with your (rightful) emphasis on the 1st century Jewish background of the NT, especially the Pauline material (since Paul, unlike Jesus, addresses much of his work to Gentiles as well as Jews).

It strikes me as very right- self obvious really- to insist on a careful reading of the NT material within the thought-world of First Century Judaism. It seems quite right to refer to extant 1st century Jewish works (cf. 4 Ezra) to make your case for the contextual read of the NT. And it seems "meet and right" for you to question Western, Modern, and Reformed assumptions about the "clear meaning" of Scripture on the basis of such a Jewish read of Scripture.

All well and good.

But the average seminary trained cleric- let alone the average Christian or non-Christian- does not have access to the type of data you are referencing. Furthermore, as you well know, us [post]moderns are coming at the text from a very different worldview. And even for the minority of us that are fluent in NT koine Greek (as I am), our knowledge of the Biblical text is so influenced by modern English translations (cf. NIV, ESV, NRSV) that we tend to automatically import their gloss on the meanings of controversial terms (cf. dikaiosunee, pistis/euo).

So we have a situation where (a) knowledge of 1st century Judaism is almost essential to understanding the NT; (b) the overwhelming majority of clerics and lay persons do not have this knowledge; with the result that (c) Average Christians and their pastors cannot simply read the NT text (even in Greek!) and truly understand it, but must rely on an ancient worldview they do not have access to for the proper interpretive lenses.

It seems that we open up a postmodern, epistemic version of the Acts 15 problem: We are, in effect, requiring 21st century Gentiles to become 1st century Jews (in worldview) to become Christians (or at least, right-thinking Christians).

The obvious alternative is to create some sort of universalized, de-historicized, de-Judaized Gospel that is communicated propositionally in terms acceptable to the philosophy of the current age. And the result of this can be anything from bland liberalism to rabid fundamentalism to Nazi holocaust.

Is there a way out of this dichotomy of scholarly historicism on one side and radical de-historicism on the other? if I must accept this dichotomy, then I side with you on the side of Jewish context.

But is there some sort of easily communicated, easily summarized, easily accessible way out of this epistemic conundrum that is analogous to the Acts 15 settlement over the physical/ritual Judaization of early Gentile converts?

Thank you for your time.

May grace and peace fill your life,
Nate Bostian

Friend or Frenemy? A Review of Peter Rollins' "Insurrection"

2011-10-10T22:45:00.003-05:00

This is an off-the-top-of-my-head review of Peter Rollins newest book "Insurrection", which I read this weekend. The book was incredibly good, in that I deeply enjoyed reading it, and it gave me a great deal to ponder and wrestle with. At the end of the day, I value Rollins' ideas about how to existentially live out our faith in Christ on a daily basis. However, I have serious concerns over Rollins' re-visioning and re-definition of key elements of the Christian tradition. As such, Rollins is a sort of "frenemy" who, on one hand is a very helpful friend in elucidating certain aspects of what it means to follow Jesus in our culture. On the other hand, he is an enemy of certain historic Christian affirmations about God and Christ.

As a "frenemy" of Christ, Rollins maintains a place for God, at the cost of flattening God into just a Name for the structure of human psychological experience. As such, his thought is helpful as a bridge to Christ, in the same way that pantheism, panentheism, psychoanalysis and even Marxism can be bridges to Christ, all of which offer various points of commonality and intersection with Christ while also displaying broad areas of discordance. Here are some of the theological moves that Rollins makes in the book:

His key theological code-words are God, Truth, Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. He does not seem to mind if these ideas are given "historic" content as things that happened in space time and which are cognitively affirmed as such. But for Rollins this affirmation is irrelevant, usually distracting, and simply meaningless for the postmodern person. Rather, their true meaning and relevance comes from their identity as descriptions of human experience.

GOD: For Rollins, God is the undeconstructable, unconditional, unselfish Love which elicits our total decision to affirm and support "the other". In this schema, God is not some "Big Other" that can be loved as a person in an "I/Thou" relationship, but rather God is the very act of Loving which allows us to treat other humans as "Thou". God's transcendence is not as an entity outside of our historic existence, but rather is "transcendence-in-immanence" as the ever deepening immanence we find as we explore the un-ending depths of our beloved (whoever that may be). To say it in a way Rollins does not: God is no longer a self-subsistent noun beyond us, but solely an immanent verb which proceeds from us, and binds us together, as an epiphenomenon of our consciousness.

To put it into Jack Caputo's terms (who Rollins draws heavily on): God is that which is undeconstructable and which deconstructs all of our social constructs. Thus God can be seen as the Love which critiques all our personal relationships, or as the Justice which critiques all our social Laws and Institutions. God is therefore a "weak force" which is constantly at work in our conscience, evaluating and interpreting our experience. God is not, and never can be, a "strong force" which exerts coercive power as an entity outside of the human self (because there is no such thing as a personal entity outside of human selves!). Caputo also names this undeconstructable weak force as "The Event". What makes an historic activity or happening into an "Event" is simply the force of human interpretation and evaluation. Before becoming an Event, an historic happening is simply a collision of matter and energy at a specific time. But, in the process of being experienced and interpreted by humans, it is given significance and meaning as an "Event". This meaning-making process, imbued and shot through with undeconstructable Justice and Love, is the weak force of God. God is the process of conflict and evaluation we call "Event".

Although Rollins never mentions his name, I think that Immanuel Kant is sniffing around somewhere at the root of this idea of God as a structure of consciousness. For this God is a sort of absolute demand for absolute Love which operates as a continual weak force in our consciousness of events. This is very close indeed to Kant's concept of the "categorical imperative" which is both absolutely universalizable to all sentient beings, and which treats all sentient beings as ends and never as means (which is a very German, cold, categorical way to express the ethical force of "Love"). I think it would be fair to say that God, for Rollins, is The Categorical Imperative, but not as a cold-blooded mental calculation, rather as a hot-blooded angst-filled passionate embrace of the Other. And following Kant, Rollins is quite allergic to hypothesizing about any metaphysical realities beyond the physical, even to the point of rendering irrelevant certain questions of whether various historical events actually happened. Thus, with Kant, Rollins relegates all of his theologizing to the realm of phenomenal empirical experience, and leaves questions of noumenal realities unasked and unanswered.

Of course, it is easy to see why Rollins (and others) call this "a/theism". It affirms God while also not affirming God. It affirms God without affirming a personal "Big Other" with whom we must deal and to whom we are accountable. Does Rollins' God "judge" us? Yes. But only with the judgment we judge ourselves with, because God is in the end our own judgment. But isn't there something to Rollins' God that is unconditional and undeconstructable? Yes, but only insofar as we allow it to be undeconstructable to us. We can completely, and permanently, ignore the "weak force" of unconditional Love, if we wish. Rollins offers us God without God, in the same way he offers us "religion without religion" (a frequently quoted catch phrase from Derrida).

It is a refinement of 1960's "Death of God" theology using the scaffolding of deconstruction rather than existentialism (and deconstruction, by the way, is a better scaffolding for this view of God). It is not a God of pure immanence or historical process, like the God of Hegel's panentheism or Spinoza's pantheism. Rather, it is God as a re-naming for a universal structure of human consciousness. As such, Rollins' God it is rather akin to a Zen Buddhist rendering of "Nirvana", in which we reach the overcoming and superseding of human experience within the very process of human experience. This supercession is neither a person nor a power nor a place, but a negation of all of these in the very process of a whole hearted affirmation of life. To which the postmodern hipster can shrug and say "Sure, if that's what you mean by God then I can roll with it." This is not God in any realistic sense (in terms of their being real universals or entities outside of empirical experience). But I suppose it is a sort of stepping stone to a realistic affirmation of God for those who are unconvinced.

TRUTH: Once we see how Rollins un/defines God, everything else pretty much falls in line. Following the idea that God is another name for the psychological structure of a hot-blooded categorical imperative, Truth is simply the psychological structure of adapting one's experience to the absolute demands of this categorical imperative. For instance, we come into an encounter with "the other" with a whole series of learned behaviors, values, and assumptions. As "God" exerts the "weak force" of Love upon our consciousness, all of these behaviors, values, and assumptions are over-turned to make room for a deconstructed way of embracing "the Other". Truth is found for Rollins precisely in this process of overturning. Or as Rollins says it "Truth is conflict". Note that Truth is NOT the solution we reach on the other side of conflict (for this is bound to be deconstructed once again as we encounter ever-new "others" to Love). Rather, Truth is the process itself. Truth is conflict itself.

What this means is that Truth is not an entity to discover or uncover. Truth is not a body of facts to construct. Truth is not even the conformity of our inner Reality "in here" to external Reality "out there" (for I doubt Rollins holds that there is an "out there" out there, only our interpretations of "out there"). Truth has nothing objective, absolute or permanent to it. Truth is another name for the psychological process of conflict resolution.

INCARNATION: For Rollins, the Incarnation does not first and foremost refer to an Event in space-time by which a Reality called God enters into human existence as a person named Jesus. This could or could not have happened, and is fairly irrelevant either way. Rather, the records we have of Jesus are a kind of example of what it means to have a human life fully yielded to the psychological process of God. Rollins does not say that we could as easily pick another exemplar to base our discussion of "Incarnation" on, but it is easy to imply this. Yet, Jesus does offer a commonly agreed upon place to step off into the idea of a fully yielded human life, fully open and receptive to the absolute call of this weak force of Love within us all. This is what Incarnation is: The fully yielded life that sacrifices everything for the sake of the God of Love. For Rollins, this is also called the "sacrifice for religion", in which we give up everything FOR God (and remember, God here defined, not as a person, but as a process of Love). This is juxtaposed with the "sacrifice of religion" in which we give up everything INCLUDING God (which we will discuss below). The importance is to note that, once again, a key term in the lexicon of theology (Incarnation) has been all but drained of any particular content, and made into the name of a universal process.

Indeed, in one section of the book, Rollins details the theological idea of kenosis, which is the emptying of Godself to enter into human life as Jesus. Rollins quotes the main text for kenosis, the Pauline Christ hymn of Philippians 2, in which Paul writes that in Christ "God emptied himself and took on the nature of a slave, being found in human likeness…" The problem with this affirmation by Rollins is that, if God is the psychological structure that Rollins claims, there simply was nothing there to empty out in the first place. For if God has no transcendent reality outside of historical process or psychological experience, then there is no transcendence to empty out to become a specific human person. Jesus becomes simply a person who is supremely aware of the psychological structure of God/Love/Justice operative in him. Jesus then is not a non-contingent, eternal, transcendent person who leaves behind glory and power to become finite, temporal and contingent. Thus, the idea of the self-emptying, self-sacrificial Love of God manifest in us, which is one of the most important existential truths of Christianity- one which has supreme value for Rollins- is suddenly undercut. There is no longer an event in "the life of God" which corresponds to this genuine emptying if God is simply the psychological process Rollins claims.

CRUCIFIXION: This is, admittedly, the key stepping off point for the entire book, and the key concept which all the other concepts constantly reference back to. Rollins' concepts of God, Truth, Incarnation, and Resurrection all find their source in the concept of Crucifixion. In particular, this is the concept that is most grounded in the narrative of Jesus' Life, because the passion narrative is where we most clearly see this psychological process illustrated. Rollins' concept of crucifixion could stand on it's own without the Biblical narrative or any reference to Christian teachings (as could all of his key concepts). But he chooses not to. For me, this is the most powerful and persuasive concept in the book.

Rollins keys heavily on Jesus' experience of God-forsakenness in the Garden, Trial, and particularly in the Crucifixion where Jesus cries "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In addition, he adds powerful narrative testimony from Mother Teresa and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both of whom had long-lasting experiences of "God forsakenness". Rollins then launches into several chapters exploring how, for Jesus and many of the great saints, genuine spirituality has always included radical doubt, deep anxiety over guilt, death and meaninglessness, and a pervasive sense of longing for God in the absence of God. Rollins makes a case that this is not merely a problem to "get over", but rather an integral part of spirituality itself, not to be ignored, denied, or medicated. He also makes a case that in most of Christianity, this is precisely the function of our liturgies, sermons, and spiritual practices: We use them as a crutch, offering false certainty, quick solutions, and never make space to discover and explore these "dark areas" of spirituality.

This is powerful, and is worth reading the book in itself, despite any other defects. His analysis of the bankruptcy of Christian spirituality in this regard is both breathtaking and remarkably accurate. His analysis of the psychological and social mechanisms we use to avoid this "dark night of the soul" that Jesus experienced in Crucifixion is right on. And to most of the things associated with this theme, I say "Right on! Amen!"

However, again, the emphasis is ultimately not on the crucifixion as a space-time event, and it is certainly not upon God-in-Christ taking upon Godself the consequences for the brokenness of the world. For Rollins, I doubt if such an event is even thinkable, because God is not a Person to whom we can relate, but a process through which we interpret and choose. So, whatever happened to Jesus on the cross, it did not have some sort of universal effect on the world, but is rather a great illustration of a process we all go through: We all have doubt, anxiety, and a sense of divine absence. To explore these experiences fully is our participation in the crucifixion. In the crucifixion, we experience the "sacrifice of religion", in which we loose God Himself (just as Jesus shows us), and die to ourselves and religion. To deny these experiences and somehow hide from them is to deny the crucifixion.

RESURRECTION: Rollins is fond of using Bonhoeffer's phrase to describe resurrection life: It is to live without God while existing before God. It is to encounter the absence of God, radical doubt, and deep anxiety head on, and then, without blinking, to give oneself fully to a whole hearted affirmation of life anyway. For Rollins, there is no difference between an internal "self" which believes certain things and wants certain things, and an external life which never quite actualizes what we really want. Rather, what we do IS what we really believe AND who we really are.

We may tell ourselves stories that we are the type of person who wants to help the homeless, or be devoted to God, or stand for justice. But that is just a mask, just a fictional story we tell ourselves to feel better about ourselves, if we do not actually DO these things. We are what we believe, and if we want to see what we believe, we need to look at our acts in the world, not to the stories we tell ourselves or the beliefs we hold.

Thus, for Rollins, to deny the resurrection IS NOT to deny that a certain event happened in space and time to the dead body of Jesus, making him alive again. This is, again, fairly irrelevant to the true meaning of resurrection. Denying or affirming the resurrection has almost nothing to do with one's beliefs or stories. Rather, to deny the resurrection is to fail to actually live out the unconditional demands of Love and Justice. To affirm the resurrection is to accomplish Love and Justice to the best of our abilities. This new life of Love and Justice, despite all our doubts, anxieties and feelings, is the true definition of "eternal life". Eternal life is not something that happens beyond historical process. Like God, it is not transcendent in that way. Rather, like Rollins' God, eternal life is a "transcendence-in-immanence" that gives our lived experience infinite, eternal depth here and now.

Two problems arise from this concept: First, it does little justice to people who cannot actualize the values and beliefs they really feel. What about the elderly, handicapped, or psychologically damaged? These people do not have the linkage between mind and body that allows them to fully actualize themselves. What about those who have dependents looking to them for food, medical care, and shelter? These people cannot abandon those who need them, in order to pursue a search for an "authentic life". The truth is that Rollins' collapse of the inner and outer person works great if someone is a pretty healthy person of means, who can choose to do whatever they want, to be as authentic as they feel they need to be. But for the vast majority of the population who is not as young, healthy, educated, and un-attached as he is, it is substantially harder to live radically. Another way of saying it is this: Rollins' a/theology is great for unattached young hipsters who have time and leisure to sit around pubs discussing this stuff, but whether it would work for people with families and responsibilities is doubtful.

The other problem is simply that, in the words of Rollins' friend Rob Bell, it does not affirm that "Love Wins" in the end. And it does not affirm that Love Wins in the end, because it does not affirm that in the historic life of Jesus of Nazareth, Love won in his actual resurrection. Rollins claims that if we believe that there is some telos, goal, or purpose at the end of history, it deletes our motivation to create our own destiny right here and now. The argument could run like this: If God is going to make everything come out right in the end, why bother working at it right now? Thus, for Rollins, we have to live as if we have complete uncertainty about whether God's purposes will prevail at the end.

And for Rollins, this is not just an argument about some people going to heaven and others suffering in hell. Even if we assume (as I do) that God will reconcile all things in heaven and on earth to Godself through Christ (cf. Col. 1:15-20), and that NO ONE is ultimately left out of God's Love, it still robs us of motivation to live into the resurrection right now. For Rollins, to live into the resurrection is to create our own destiny as we live into complete uncertainty, and embrace life as it is, doubts and pain and all. To have any inkling of future certainty takes away from authentic life and responsibility now.

I think, in this, he is simply confusing the crucifixion life and the resurrection life. Yes, the crucified life- to which we are all called- is to tread a path of doubt, anxiety, and God-forsakenness with Christ. But the resurrection life is to hope against hopelessness, on the basis of God's victory over death in Christ, that God's Love wins in the end regardless of how dark things look right now. With Rollins, I believe it involves embracing life as it is, warts and all, and creating our own destinies through God's Love. But there is one important difference: I hope with an undying hope that God will take my attempts at living into the resurrection and weave them together with all the saints across time into a beautiful tapestry that will be revealed in the End. In this, God's telos is not some micro-managed, pre-determined blueprint of future affairs (which would in fact rob us of motivation to live authentically now). Rather, God's telos is a promise that however it happens, God will find a way to make sure Love wins in the end, and that all are brought this Love found in Christ. This open-ended telos frees us to embrace life fully, without fear of failure, to become who God made us to be, knowing that God can use both our successes and failures for future glory.

OTHER THEMES: Once we step outside of this train of themes I describe above, Rollins' work is very helpful in many other ways. His constant psychoanalysis and social analysis of the manifold ways we continually pull the wool over our own eyes is brilliant. It is a great adaptation of many of the themes one can find in Marx, Lacan, and Zizek (who combines both Marx and Lacan). In particular, I loved Rollins' use of the recent Batman movies as an illustration of how consumer capitalism masks the ways we are complicit in the misery of much of the world. While Rollins nowhere flies the Marxist flag, it is clear that there is a great deal of neo-marxist economic analysis behind his parables and observations. And this is a very good thing. Because in the Western world, the economic basis of society has shifted so far "right" that we have no real alternative to cutthroat global corporate consumer capitalism, and no real way of conceiving life outside of this God-less system. One of the themes I would have loved for Rollins to explore further is how our economic system functions as a surrogate "god" with all it's talk of the "invisible hand" and "omniscience of the market" and such. If ever there was a social case for divine absence, it is in our economic and marketing system. But I digress. The social and psychological insights of the book are well worth the read, and the challenge.

OF GODS AND MEN: It just so happened that, as I was finishing the book, I was invited to watch and discuss the 2010 French movie "Of Gods and Men". It details a true story about a small monastery of Trappist monks in Algeria, in 1996, during the Algerian civil war. Of the 9 monks that were there, 7 were martyred under mysterious circumstances. The movie explores their trials and discussions as they made the painful decision to stay rather than flee. A decision which cost most of them their lives.

Throughout the movie, these men wrestle with most of the issues raised by Rollins. They struggle with their own complicity in the sickness of the social system. They struggle with radical doubt, unknowing, and a profound sense of divine absence. They struggle with the absolute call to love their enemies, as well as the townspeople who depend on them, as well as themselves. And constantly, their discussions and struggles are rooted in their daily practice of the liturgy, and a careful consideration of what it means to follow the implications of the Incarnation. And not the Incarnation as merely a psychological category, but the Incarnation as an historic person. In addition, the ancient liturgy itself- contrary to Rollins' caricatures- was the site of their most profound wrestlings with doubt and divine absence. It was in the process of chanting the old songs and psalms, hearing the ancient writings, and doing the old rituals, that they found the materials they needed to wrestle deeply with their "dark night".

In this story I found- in accordance with the lives of the great saints and martyrs of the Church- that Rollins' critiques are best answered by a full and robust commitment to God, Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection as historic events first and foremost, and only following this historic realism, do they become existential categories for human psychological and social action. And not only that, but a commitment to the ancient liturgical practice of the Church is the site and source for the formation of these truths into Christlikeness in the lives of the people who practice the liturgy. This liturgy is not the consumer-driven drivel that one finds in many American churches, but the rich, deep, boring, predictable, ancient, seasonal liturgies of the traditional churches and monastic orders. The truth is, as illustrated by the martyrdom of these monks, that the ancient beliefs and practices of the Church are the most effective and time-tested way to produce people who fully live into the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

This is, in fact, what one also finds in the lives of the saints that Rollins himself mentions- Teresa and Bonhoeffer- who both engaged in daily liturgy, and treated the story of Jesus Christ as historic, even when they did not FEEL the power of that affirmation for extended periods of time. In distinction to Rollins' ideas about how a "Divine telos" robs us of the motive to live into justice and love now, we find that those saints and martyrs who believed most that God would somehow use their feeble deeds to contribute to the ultimate victory of Love, are the very ones who stood most firmly for justice and love in this life.

In the end, Rollins could be called an expositor of a sort of Zen Buddhist Psychoanalytic Marxism, in which the relevant categories for human psycho-socio-economic experience are keyed to certain Christian terms, which have been reinterpreted and redefined, not as signposts pointing to space-time events with subjective existential impact, but as the very categories of human existence themselves, without referent to any space-time events other than what is immediately accessible to all people at all times. Thus, Rollins' a/theology is a sort of continuation of the modernist theological move to elevate universal form, structure, and method over any particular content. In this, Rollins is yet another heir- albeit a fairly Marxist heir- of the bourgeois theological modernism of Schleirmacher.

in fact, one of the things that bothered me most about reading Rollins is the same feeling I get from reading Schleirmacher or Kant. And that feeling is that, beneath all the beautiful words, I feel like a linguistic slight-of-hand has been pulled. The trick this time is that: "When we talk about God, we are really just talking about ourselves". Rollins represents yet another post/modernist triumph of the universal, therapeutic, psychoanalytic, and performative over the particular, historic, substantive, and real. And for all of his talk about deep love and respect for "The Other", it seems that Rollins is very allergic to allowing God to be a full participant in Otherness. God does not get to act on God's own, nor reveal Godself to humanity in an historic sense. Rather, God is strictly tied to us as an organ of our own experience, which collapses "The Other" into "Just folk like us". Rollins speaks a great deal of his pyro-theology as one of "subtraction" or "burning down". And this is true. For what we get is a deletion of many aspects of God's reality and our own. What we need instead is a theology that embraces all sides of the paradox of human and divine reality- immanence AND transcendence, particularity AND universality, history AND psychology, interpretation AND realism- and holds them in unresolvable creative tension. Rollins, like many others through the ages, simply alleviates certain tensions and paradoxes by cutting off or burning away the parts he feels least comfortable with.

The historic Christian faith, which treats Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection as first and foremost historical, can deliver everything Rollins' merely psychologized faith does. It can explain ongoing feelings of divine absence, how it functioned in Jesus' life, and how it functions today as a path to draw near to God through Christ, even when we do not feel it. It can explain the need to work for Justice and Love. It can give us a reason to live boldly into this life and create our destiny with God in Love. But not only can it do what Rollins' psychologized faith does, it can do more. It can posit an historic epicenter for the actual revelation of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It can posit that God is not just the power of Love flowing through us, but also a Person to whom we can know and relate to, in Love, as "I/Thou". And it can posit a promised hope that, no matter how badly we fail, or how courageously we act, we can be assured that Love will in fact win in the end. To sum it up, the ancient, historic Christian faith offers all of the insights and benefits Rollins does and more, without leaving us bereft of a truly transcendent God who reaches into space and time to become one with us in an historic human life, death, and resurrection.

So here's my recommendation: Buy the book. Rollins is a much better writer than I am. Enjoy it. Wrestle through it. Take his implications on how to live the Christian life seriously. But beware of the underlying metaphysics which reduces theology to merely psychological processes.

Ockham Rap

2011-09-15T16:39:00.001-05:00

This has to be one of the Geekiest things I have ever written. I am co-teaching a class called "The God Debate" about religious belief and unbelief. Several of the thinkers we have examined on both sides of the debate have referred to William of Ockham and his [in]famous "razor". For those who do not know, Ockham was a 14th century Franciscan Friar, a professor at the University of Oxford, one of the founders of the scientific method, and also excommunicated by the Pope for reasons that are partially philosophical and mostly political. Anyway, I thought, "Hey, I should write a rap song to explain Ockham." So, I did. What makes this even stranger is that I am more of a mystical Thomist with a serious affection for postmodern deconstruction. So, it is odd that after an hour and a half of doodling, this came out:

The Ockham Rap
Copyright (c) 2011 by Nathan L. Bostian

His name is William of Ockham
And his philosophy's rockin'
Metaphysical speculations
Are what he's blocking

We rely on too many causes
To explain our problems
Like using angels and demons
To try and solve 'em

When a simple explanation
Based on sense and sight
Would completely describe
Almost anything, right?

This is called Ockham's razor
A speculative saber
Cutting off extra entities
Like they were shot with a phaser

Like when you use three factors
To describe what two factors do:
Why do you use that third factor
Like some kind of fool?

Simply! Says this guy!
On crutches don't rely!
Rid yourself of superstitions
And all excessive replies.

The only things that exist
Are the things themselves.
No need to resort
To abstract universals!

In fact we have no need
For disembodied spiritual forms:
They are all just names
We give to categories and norms

We call this Nominalism
To break you out the the prison
Of confusing individual things
With the Names we give em

For instance: A dog is just a dog
Not an instance of dogness
And fog is water droplets
Not the essence of fogness

So don't think a human person
As part of abstract humanity
And don't use the category "fish"
When you deal with a manatee

Stick to simple, direct,
Particular observations
And never multiply entities
To try and explain them.

This is the Philosophy of Ockham
In a nice little rhyme
And it led to empirical science
In a few centuries time.

The Moral Argument Against Religion

2011-09-12T08:31:00.003-05:00

I am currently reading and teaching from the infamous books by Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great". In pondering Hitchens' arguments against God, I find myself continually underwhelmed (although very entertained). I do not find him persuasive, but rather rhetorically brilliant.

I think that the god Hitchens is arguing against is a god which I would argue against: A kind of "dictator in the sky" who cannot wait to damn the maximum number of people possible. The god he lambasts seems to be an evil elementary school principal writ large, and as such is the common concept of god among grade schoolers and teenagers. And since this is the age when a great many people stop going to Sunday School or challenging their ideas of god, it is also the god of a great many Americans.

So, what happens when a pre-adolescent concept of god is confronted with the complexities of adult life, especially the life of a foreign correspondent who has seen levels of human carnage and suffering beyond what most of us can comprehend? That god gets Hitch-slapped. And rightfully so.

I find Hitchens arguments very compelling against this pre-adolescent concept of god. But the problem is, I don't find that god to be God. God, especially as revealed in and through Jesus of Nazareth, is someone completely different. This God is expansive and embracing, the epicenter of the undying Love which humanity craves. This God does not abandon process and the messiness of life, but works through it, always offering healing, never withdrawing the hope of redemption.

This God is almost entirely untouched by Hitchens. In fact, I might even argue that Hitchens cannot grasp or identify this God as a possibility within the religious landscape.

Thus, when it comes down to brass tacks, I find that the most probable solution to the "big problems" of origins, cosmic rationality, the problem of suffering, the source of human religious impulses, and even the inspiration of the Scriptures and the explanation of the "Christ event", always point me toward a Relational, Personal God who allows creaturely freedom in order to make room for shared Love.

But, there is an argument which gnaws at me. And it is an argument against religion, rather than God.

For, while the evidence may point strongly to the high probability that God exists, and even that God became incarnate in a specific human life 2000 years ago, it does not necessarily follow from this that any particular group of people is practicing the remembrance of this in any authentic fashion.

Christian history is full of epistemic claims to try and demonstrate that certain communities practice the most authentic remembrance of God-in-Christ. These theories may focus on tradition, tactile-succession, doctrine, Scripture, continuance of miracles, etc. But the common denominator is that they focus on accurate knowledge, and knowledge maintenance structures, as the key to authenticity.

However, I generally find these theories less than persuasive.

Instead, I find a more pragmatic, moral way of demonstrating authenticity to be the most persuasive. For me, the question is: Which community generates the greatest amount of sanctity among it's members, as measured by the types of criteria specified by Christ and his apostles? Which community consistently produces Christians who bear the fruit of the Spirit, the virtues of Christ? Which community creates saints?

And the sad fact is, insofar as I spy the landscape, none of us does a particularly good job of this. Not even among- or even especially among- the leadership of the various Churches. We are all racked with corruption, selfishness, pride, vanity, and every other vice known across history. No community can, with a straight face, claim that even a strong minority of its members have been "holy", much less its leaders.

And it is not just a Christian phenomenon. No religion consistently creates saints. Not one.

And to frustrate the matter even more, there ARE shining individuals from other religions and philosophies who do actually show signs of "conspicuous sanctity". Individual saints not only come packaged in the Christian wrapper, but also as Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Confucians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Agnostics, and even Atheists. There are Christlike people who may in fact reject, or not even know of, Christ.

This is not to say they produce saints at higher rates than Christian Churches. They don't. And I would imagine that the percentage of individuals who rise "above the bell curve" in any community is about the same across the board.

It is just to say that there seems to be very little correlation between the production of Christlike virtue, and following Christ in any of the existing Christian traditions.

And what is so troubling is that this is precisely the opposite of what Christ and his Apostles predicted. They predicted that one who followed Christ in faith would become Christlike. So, the existing communities of Christianity fail to produce what was promised. There may be isolated incidents of sanctity, but sanctity is not the rule. And it should be.

To look at it empirically, we may even say that the hypothesis of the Christian religion has been tried, and it has largely failed. It predicts one thing, but delivers another. It falsifies itself, based on its own claims.

What shall I make of this?

I could reduce my expectations of sanctity, both for myself and for others who claim Christian faith. This I do on a regular basis, but I know I am pulling the wool over my own eyes when I do it. It does not satisfy.

I could reject the whole project of "Christian Religion" as futile. But I don't think this is the way either. It turns me into a disconnected "autonomous" individual, which I think is part of the problem in the first place. We, as humans, need more of a communal identity, not less.

I could redouble my efforts to find some community that exhibits sanctity on a more consistent basis. But, given my experience such a community must be so small as to be almost cultlike. And if not cultlike, then almost certainly self-righteous and legalistic. Mormons come to mind (and their epistemic claims are unbelievable to boot!).

I could work from within a concrete community, in solidarity with struggling people, to actualize the holiness promised by the Lord, even if that community is flawed in a number of ways. I could believe that the only way to deconstruct and reconstruct "the institutional church" is to in fact be part of the institution of the church. Or put another way: The only way to "stick it to tha man" is to become "tha man".

That's what I do.

Because this type of argument against religion is not one which allows the arguer to stay objectively detached from the argument (not if they are anywhere near honest with themselves).

Because immediately upon charging a group of people with hypocrisy- with failing to live up to their own expectations- the accusation comes full circle:

What about me? Am I any better?

If I am better, why am I not doing something to change things? And if I am doing nothing to change things, yet I know how to change them, then that makes me an even bigger hypocrite.

If instead I am in the same boat as others, how can I cast stones? And if I am actually a worse hypocrite than some people, then it stands that I should join them to learn from them.

Thus, no matter whether I am better, average, or worse in terms of sanctity, the implication is clear: I need to be part of a community greater than myself in order to increase the sanctity of both myself and others. We can only be saints together, if we can be saints at all.

Or, to put it in a more pithy way:

The Church is full of hypocrites. And there is room for one more. So come join us.

A Politics of Virtue

2011-07-20T16:38:00.001-05:00

I have been struggling for quite some time to figure out where I fit politically, and crystalize it into some coherent form I could communicate with others. After reading quite a bit from the Left, some from the Right, and a healthy smattering of Hauerwas, Radical Orthodoxy, and MacIntyre, I have come across a concept called by some "Politics of Virtue" (cf. Philip Blonde). I think this is a pretty good summary of where I am at.

So, before I give my summary statement, I would like to clarify two things: What I mean by "politics" and "virtue".

By politics I mean how people behave toward one another in public, and especially how groups of people behave toward other groups, and the expectations they have of how our common "society" should function. Thus, anytime groups of people are together, politics is necessarily involved, because (as I like to say): Wherever there are people there are politics. Humans are political animals, and with any issue that impacts groups of people, they will inevitably develop ideologies about how to deal with the issue, and form sub-groups to enact their ideologies in public life. Thus, our political life consists of the groups we form (our parties), the solutions we propose (our policies), and the actions we take (our practices). Unless we are hermits, we are political actors on local, regional, national and international levels through our various parties, policies, and practices. Rather than trying to eschew politics or act like we are apolitical, it is best that we are conscious and deliberative about the political life we already are part of.

By virtue, I mean a certain "shape" or "form" of character that brings health and wholeness to persons and communities. Virtue is not a set of actions or list of rules, but a type or pattern of personality that gives rise to choices and actions that bring health to oneself and one's community. Vice is the opposite of virtue, and it refers to diseased, unhealthy and malignant patterns of personality that bring about damage and destruction to oneself and one's community. As followers of Christ, our standard for virtuous life- a life that is abundant in health, healing, harmony, and wholeness- is of course the life of Christ himself. This is not to say that virtue is confined to him alone or to Christianity alone. Certainly virtue is practiced and taught by other people and other traditions. It is merely to say that, for Christians, the fullness of life and completion of virtue is found in the God who became human, Jesus Christ. He is our Source and Exemplar of what it means to be virtuous as individuals and as a community. In various Biblical texts, notably Matthew 7, we are told to evaluate the virtue of a person as a farmer might evaluate the health of a crop by looking at it's "fruit". The "fruit" of a virtuous person consists of specific, namable personality traits which resemble Christ, and spread Christ's health and healing to others. Likewise, on a political level, communities exhibit certain character traits which are either healthy, life-giving, and virtuous, or sick, malignant, and vicious.

Thus, I can summarize my political standpoint as follows:

I stand for a "Politics of Virtue": A Way of public practice and policy that draws those who govern and those who are governed into the health, wholeness, and harmony of Christ-like communities. This pattern of virtuous personal and communal life is called the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.22-23, and it beckons us to asses our common political life based on the Christ-like virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, and self-control. Thus we must evaluate our political parties, policies, and practices by the following criteria: 1. Does it grow communal love, in which we have unconditional care for our neighbors, and selflessly give of ourselves for the sake of their welfare? 2. Does it grow communal joy, in which we give thanks for our gifts and celebrate the grace found in creation and each another? 3. Does it grow communal peace, in which we practice peacemaking, reconciliation, and forgiveness? 4. Does it grow communal patience, in which we suffer with one another as long as is needed to bring about the common good? 5. Does it grow communal kindness, in which we use our blessings to bless others in acts of undeserved grace and personal sacrifice? 6. Does it grow communal goodness, in which we make our goods available to those in need, so everyone has access to the goods needed to sustain a good life of health and wholeness? 7. Does it grow communal faithfulness, in which we fulfill the vows and promises we make to one another, while protecting the community from those who are unfaithful, untrue, or unjust? 8. Does it grow communal humility, in which we recognize our own limitations and mistakes, as well as our interdependence upon one another and the God-given creation we dwell in? 9. Does it grow communal self-control, in which we practice a simple, satisfied, sustainable lifestyle in harmony with the resources granted to us by God? This "Politics of Virtue" transcends contemporary political systems, whether aristocratic or democratic, conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive, by judging all systems with the question: Does this system produce a community of people who exhibit Christ-like character? If the answer is yes, then it is a good political system: That is, it draws people to what is Good. If the answer is that it produces communities at odds with Christ-like virtue then it is a political system that needs to be reformed, rejected or replaced.

Copyright (c) 2011 Nathan L. Bostian. All rights reserved.

Development and Dimension

2011-06-21T12:35:00.001-05:00

Today I encountered a valid critique of my concept of development which I made use of in my essay on dealing with "contradictions" in the Bible. The critique is that I lumped all of the Old Testament into a lower developmental level (that of a child) as compared to the New Testament. In turn, both the OT and NT were lumped into a lower level than current culture.

This brings up the conception that I think the OT is "child's play", and even worse, that we are somehow morally superior to ancient cultures. This is patently untrue, since by any objective calculation the 20th century was the most brutal and violent on record.

My first response is to say that this objection is dealt with by understanding what I mean by "development" in my essay on developmental revelation. It clarifies a few things:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2011/02/developmental-revelation-and-divine.html

My point in comparing human society at a "childhood" developmental level to society at a "teen" or "adult" level was not to make a point about the moral progress or goodness of society at any particular time. When we talk of individuals, we all know good kids and bad adults. We also know very spiritual kids and very jaded adults. Age and development is not an indicator of moral or spiritual progress.

Rather, I was speaking of development in terms of capacity to understand, synthesize and act in Reality. In terms of individuals, it is clear that an adult is more developed than a teen who is more developed than a child in terms of physical capabilities and intellectual capabilities. The more developed you are, the more capacity you have to understand and do things.

This development CAN be taken in a positive moral direction (such as finding a cure for cancer), or it CAN be taken in a negative moral direction (such as finding a way to engineer biological weapons). In fact, the more developed you are, the more capacity one has for goodness or badness. A 2 year old throwing a tantrum is a lot less dangerous than a teen throwing a tantrum, who is a lot less dangerous than a tyrannical dictator throwing a tantrum.

Now, when we move from individual development to social development, it is clear that two things happen as well: (a) Over time, as a society develops, there is more capacity to understand, synthesize, and act as a society; (b) That such capacity creates the opportunity for greater goods and worse evils.

So, it is NOT that our society is BETTER than NT society which is BETTER than OT society. It is that our society has a greater development, and more total resources available for understanding and action, than NT society. And NT society in turn has greater development and more resources than OT society.

And this is not to say that the writings of the OT and NT are not intelligent and complex. In our culture, it requires a well-educated adult level of individual development to begin to really understand what is going on in Scripture. This is true even of the earliest parts of Scripture which were written to the least developed culture.

To be sure, the INDIVIDUAL writers (and readers) of the Bible were intelligent by the standard of any society, no matter how developed that society was/is as a whole. Surely, St. Paul was more intelligent than me, and the writer of Ecclesiastes was wiser (and that just scratches the surface!). Likewise, many of the arguments made in Scripture are complex and nuanced. But they are complex and nuanced in a certain cultural context which must be understood within its own level of development.

Thus, when I speak of social development and "developmental revelation", I am talking about:

- Development as a society, NOT development of individuals.

- Development of within the context of the communities who received the Biblical writings, NOT that Biblical writings (and writers) somehow lacked complexity and nuance.

- Development of capabilities, NOT development of morality/holiness, or development of spirituality

- Development of TOTAL resources which contribute to the horizon of a societal world-view.

These total resources would include access to food and water, social stability, uniform laws, the conceptual capabilities imbedded in language, the conceptual options available in surrounding cultures, the taboos and social limitations on thought and communication, and dozens of other factors.

For instance, let's take two rather complex concepts: "The Triune God who is transcendent and immanent" and "The sanctity of human life, leading to universal human rights".

While to you and I these may be fairly simple concepts, and even "self-evident" in some sense, think about the immense web of social resources required to both realize and sustain these concepts. Those concepts rest on three millennia of hard work, not only in Scripture (which provides the trajectory toward these ideas in embryonic and disconnected form) but also in society. It requires both the Hebraic and Greco-Roman thought-worlds to accomplish. And those thought-worlds are in turn based on several sets of interlocking social factors that make them possible.

So, the OT provides some great insights from brilliant and holy people who lived in a certain developmental context. In their immediate context (at the time that they wrote) their ideas had a certain limited field of meaning to the original intended audience. But, when those ideas are brought into a wider developmental context (like ours) dimensions of meaning and applicability are added to the same concepts that the original authors and audiences would not have been fully aware of.

To use CS Lewis' analogy of raising complexity to different dimensions: Someone can draw/paint a very complex picture in two dimensions, and it can be absolute world-class genius. If another takes that same picture and then raises it a dimension into three dimensions as a statue (assuming the artist is as good as the original) it then takes on even more complexity and depth. Then let's say someone in the 22nd century brings the same portrait into a 4th dimension we are barely aware of now. And then later a 5th dimension, etc., etc.

The raised level of dimensionality in no way diminishes the genius of the original piece. In fact, serious art students would ALWAYS study the original, and then the higher-dimension renderings as well. However, it would be untrue to say that the original work was as dimensionally complex as the derivative works based on it.

I think that is what I am trying to say about the development in Scripture, and the further theological development that is derivative upon Scripture. The concepts provided in Scripture are spiritual and moral genius, and they have a high level of complexity by any standard. However, many of these concepts are presented in embryonic form at a lower dimension of social development. They await further application and appreciation as we raise these same concepts into higher dimensions of social development.

A final concrete example:

The command "Love your neighbor" has a certain limited sphere of meaning in an ancient land-based culture of the OT. That same command raises to another dimension when culture moves into the pan-Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire of the NT. It further expands in the pan-European culture of the Middle Ages. It further expands in our age of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic globalism. And, assuming we find sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy (which I think we will), the command will expand dimensionally at that point as well. And, even beyond this, what if we become able to interact with beings in other literal dimensions, or other versions of our world in multiple time-lines? Who knows how the 3000+ year old command to "Love your neighbor" might grow in dimensional complexity?

Copyright 2011 (c) The Rev. Nate Bostian

Dealing with the "contradictions" in the Bible

2011-06-17T21:56:00.007-05:00

On a fairly regular basis, one of my students will come to me with questions about whether the Bible contradicts itself. Sometimes their faith is shaken. Sometimes they are trying to find a reason not to believe in the Bible. Whether they are shaken or skeptical, their underlying concern is this: How could a perfect, truthful God give us an imperfect, flawed Book?

This week, I wrote one of my students the following essay on "Bible contradictions". What may surprise you is that I disagree with many Christian attempts to "defend" the Bible almost as much as I disagree with skeptical attempts to debunk it. It seems that most modern skeptics and many modern Christians are guilty of reading the Bible wrongly: In a way that is completely foreign to the purposes and materials found in Scripture itself.

This is particularly true in the American "Bible Belt" where Conservative Christians and angry Atheists get locked in battles over Scripture. Because neither side really understands the nature of what they are reading, they can't help but misunderstanding both the text and each other.

it's like two illiterates arguing over the meaning of Tolstoy's "War and Peace".

I think there are five main factors that come together to create an un-informed view of what the Bible is all about for both Christians and non-Christians in modern culture. Here is my short list:

1. Christians often fail to admit when the Bible does actually have contradictions.

The debate and discussion over the meaning of the Bible simply starts off wrong when Christians are unrealistic about the Bible itself. The Bible not only has parts that are clear, inspiring, rational, and intelligent, but it also has parts that are confusing, paradoxical, messy, and crude. Christians should admit that.

I think most of the difficulties in Scripture can be resolved by knowing how Scripture texts have been copied, the culture they came from, the original language, the historical setting, and a sense of how Scripture's message developed over time. So, most of the Bible's supposed "contradictions" are really caused by the misunderstanding or downright ignorance of the reader.

But, not every problem in Scripture can be explained this way. There are contradictions. There are some contradictions between one part of the Bible and another (internal contradictions). And there are some contradictions between the Bible and the outside world, such as science or history (external contradictions). And while I don't think Scripture has a ton of contradictions, I think it has some. And Christians should be honest and admit this too.

For instance, when Jesus sends out the disciples, we have the following accounts of what Jesus says:

Matthew 10.10 [Jesus said] Take no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food.

Mark 6.8 [Jesus] ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts;

Luke 9.3 [Jesus] said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.

So, in Mark Jesus allows them to take a staff, while in Matthew and Luke he did not. Now, we could come up with inventive theories about how this is not a contradiction. Perhaps we could say the text was copied the wrong way. Perhaps we could say they appear to be talking about the same incident, but really they are describing similar but separate incidents. But, at the end of the day, these explanations seem forced and false.

The clearest explanation is that on this one point, the Gospels do not agree.

And you know what, it's OK. The basic message is still the same in all the Gospels: Jesus is sending his disciples out on a preaching and healing mission and he wants them to rely on very few material possessions, and instead depend on the providence of God.

Furthermore, this contradiction does not alter the historicity of the event. We can reliably know that (a) Jesus existed; (b) He had disciples; (c) He sent them out to preach and heal; (d) In so doing, he gave instructions about what to take and not take, including money, clothing, and staffs.

I have read the entire Bible multiple times, and translated nearly all of the New Testament out of Greek. I know of no discrepancy that affects the basic meaning or historicity of the New Testament. And in regards to the Old Testament, there are portions that are not historical in the sense that we think of as history. Yet, the basic trajectory of meaning found there is intact. More on this later.

But long story short, there is no need for Christians to go to absurd lengths to defend the Bible against every claim of contradiction. Nor should Christians have their faith threatened by small discrepancies in Scripture. Our faith does not ultimately rest on the Bible, rather it ultimately rests in the God to whom the Bible points to, and in Jesus who fully reveals God. More on this later too.

2. Many modern readers are abysmally ignorant of ancient cultures, literary styles, and standards of accuracy.

This should be a no-brainer, but it isn't. Modern scientific history, sociology, politics, and science has only existed for around for 200 years in the Western world.

Before that, the world simply did not know these disciplines as we know them now, and thus did not judge literature by their standards. Another way of saying it is this: Neither the Bible writers nor ANY writer up till the Enlightenment tried to hold to a modern scientific standard of accuracy or citation or evidence. Those standards simply did not exist yet.

The Bible writers were not trying to write a science book. The science they knew was extremely crude, and often inaccurate by our standards. When God inspired the various writers to write Scripture, he was not inspiring them to write science. God knew humans would develop that on our own. God was inspiring humans to write about things we could not grasp on our own power, like the nature of God, the reality of sin, the need for salvation, etc.

For instance, Genesis 1 is a poem, not a scientific lab report. And this poem is about the superiority of Yahweh over all other created realities. It is NOT a scientific description of the creation of the world. Likewise, Genesis chapters 2-11 are symbolic, allegorical and legendary. It is given to teach things about God's relationship with humans and the world in a colorful, memorable way. Nothing truly historic starts happening until Genesis 12, and even then it is not history as we think of history. It is more of an imaginative re-telling of the foundational lives of the Hebrew people.

That does not mean it is not true, just that it is not historically accurate. Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar" is not historically accurate, even if it tells a lot of great truths about the human condition, and even tells a few accurate things about Roman culture. But it is not a scientifically historic and objective retelling of the events of Julius Caesar's life. The same is true for much of the Old Testament.

When we get to the New Testament, we are dealing with a more historic, factual period in literature. What we read in the Gospels and Acts is a religiously motivated re-telling of events that historically happened. As such, the early Christian writings are more-or-less historical, and we can place more emphasis on the fact that Jesus really lived, died, and was raised from death in space and time.

But even in these writings, the standards of accuracy are not what we would expect of history. In addition, these documents are very selective in the events they discuss and the perspective they discuss them from (for instance, they leave out nearly all of Jesus' childhood and young adulthood). This is very different from a modern historical biography, which tries to give a comprehensive account of a person's entire life and cultural background from multiple perspectives.

Thus, in the New Testament we can gain a pretty accurate account of some events in Jesus' life and the early Christian community, but there will be large areas we are not fully sure about. In short, our information about Jesus and the early Church is based in history, but not the same kind of historical method as say, reading a modern history book about Abraham Lincoln or the Civil War.

3. Many modern readers seem to want the Bible to be like the Quran, and then get upset when it is not.

The Muslim view of the Quran is that it was directly dictated by God through the Angel Gabriel (God spoke Arabic) and recited by Muhammed. In this process, according to Muslims, NONE of Muhammed's human viewpoints or personality was involved in the making of the Quran. To use an over-simplified analogy, Muhammed was a "divine typewriter" that spoke exactly what he received from God.

The Bible, on the other hand, was written by dozens (hundreds?) of authors in around 70 books over the course of 1500 years. Each book bears the stamp of the interests, prejudices and viewpoints of the human authors, cultures and communities involved in writing them. There was no divine typewriter here, but rather a gradual development over time of the Biblical message.

Some Christians and many skeptics want to treat the Bible as if it was some sort of Quran. The act as if the Bible miraculously appeared from heaven, fully formed. These Christians do it to supposedly defend the absolute "inerrancy" of the Bible, and keep firm the "foundation" of faith they believe is the Bible. Skeptics follow the same tactic to set up a straw man argument.

The logic goes something like this:

Major Premise: The Bible is inspired by God.
Minor Premise: Anything inspired by God must be perfectly factual according to modern scientific and historic standards
Conclusion: The Bible is therefore inerrant.

But then the Skeptic says: Wait! The Bible has errors! Therefore the Bible MUST NOT be inspired by God!

To which the [modern, conservative] Christian replies: No! I will go to absurd lengths to prove that the Bible has no flaws, no matter how badly I seem to be grasping at straws!

However, the minor premise is really problematic. It assumes that God comes from modern, western culture (God must be a white European?). It also assumes that God inspired the Bible to be a book of science and history, instead of having another purpose.

Yet, it is pretty clear that the Bible's purpose is to draw us into relationship with God, not to give us a databank of obscure scientific and historical facts. To use a crude metaphor: The Bible is more of a collection of Love letters and family stories, written to help us know and love God, rather than a scientific textbook.

In fact, while the "inerrancy" argument above might work if one were discussing the Quran, it simply does not work with the Bible. The Bible is not under judgment from Western science, because it was never intended to function as that type of document. Since Muslims view the Quran as the direct dictation of God, perhaps they feel the need to prove the Quran's inerrancy (I don't know for sure: Ask a Muslim).

But the inspiration of the Bible was never understood as being authored that way, so Christians should feel absolutely no need to defend the Bible as if it were perfect in the modern sense. And Christians who treat the Bible as some sort of Quran are doing more harm to their faith than they realize, since their faith is ultimately resting on the Bible instead of on the God to whom the Bible points.

4. Many modern readers fail to grasp the concept of development and trajectory across time in Scripture.

This is another no-brainer which few people seem to really grasp. But the Bible is developmental. Its message developed over 1500 years.

Just think of how the American concepts of "democracy", "civil rights" and "science" have developed over just the last 230 odd years since the founding of the United States. And that is less than 1/6 the time that Scripture covers!

When the Bible began being written, it was written to and for a group of semi-nomadic Semitic tribes who lived in a society that was brutal and barbaric beyond imagination. They had no centralized government, a barter economy, sporadic national defense, inter-tribal warfare, and no organized system of transportation, irrigation, taxation, communication, education, commerce, or food distribution.

Imagine how simple and primitive God's messages to those people would have to be.

They had no language for "universal human rights" or "social justice" or even "unconditional love". They had no concept of a society based on law rather than on blood ties. They had no understanding of a universal, eternal, loving God. God had to start at rock bottom to get these concepts through to them.

And when the Bible finished being written, there was more for God to work with in revealing Godself to us, but society was still primitive by our standards. Several Empires rose and fell from the beginning of the Bible to the New Testament era. But Rome had risen victorious. They provided social systems and stability, as well as universal currency and a system of laws. Also, the Hebrew prophets and Greek philosophers had written by then, so there was a language to talk about God's nature and the nature of human existence.

Yet, even at this time Greco-Roman culture was racked with poverty, illiteracy, war, violence, slavery, patriarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, and ethnic prejudice and hatred.

My point is that, since God is dealing with humans who grow and change and evolve as individuals and as a culture, God has to adapt in the way God communicates Godself to us. God has to use available resources.

Thus, as culture develops over time, we see a development of how the Bible conceives of God and God's relation to humanity. For instance, from the beginning of Scripture to the end of Scripture, we see the following development:

In terms of Godself: God begins as the highest God among many lesser gods; Then all lesser gods are seen as demons or angels, with God as the only God; Then God is seen as the Ultimate Reality that holds all of Reality together; Then God is seen as a Father who loves humans; Then God is seen as an eternal Father who has an eternal Son and shares an eternal Spirit. Later Christian Theology (after the Bible) saw this as the basis of "The Trinity".

In terms of violence: In the earliest Bible texts, violence is just part of the way things are and God helps various tribes to victory over others; Violence then becomes something punished within society, but still used by Israel to invade and get rid of non-Israelite cultures; Violence is then questioned by the prophets, who foretell of a coming age of Peace when "swords will be beaten into plowshares"; Violence is then rejected by Jesus Christ, who refuses to start a violent uprising, and instead defeats violence by allowing himself to be murdered and then rise again; Violence is finally spurned in the later New Testament is wholly beneath Christlike standards of living, and only the government is given "the sword" to protect society.

I could go on with other examples in terms of slavery, civil rights, women's rights, the concept of justice and love, and dozens of other issues.

But the point is that, across Scripture, we often do not find an exact agreement. In fact we may find Scriptures that are at odds with each other on many issues, such as the use of violence or the treatment of women. Yet, we can discern a trajectory and a development across time. This trajectory goes from barbaric to civilized, from law to love, from prejudice to justice, from tribal to universal.

So we should expect earlier Scriptures to have more simplistic and crude viewpoints on various matters than the later Scriptures. Likewise, we should expect the Church and later Christian thinkers to take the trajectory of Scripture and more fully develop the trajectory found there.

As an analogy, think of how you might answer the same question if a question were asked by a 5 year old or a 50 year old. Your answers to the 50 year old would be considerably more developed and nuanced than you answer to the 5 year old.

How would you answer change if a 5 year old or 50 year old asked "What is God like"?

How would you answer change if a 5 year old or 50 year old asked "What is right and wrong"?

How would you answer change if a 5 year old or 50 year old asked "What happens when we die"?

In a similar way, when you are dealing with the Bible, the earlier portions are the social equivalent of dealing with a 5 year old. In all honesty, I would say the New Testament is the social equivalent of dealing with an early teen. And if you move up to our culture, we are probably the social equivalent of a late teen or early 20-something.

We have a lot to learn. And to do that we need to follow the trajectory of Scripture, even if that trajectory differs from the exact wording of earlier portions of Scripture.

For a more extensive essay on the concept of developmental revelation, see my blog here:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2011/02/developmental-revelation-and-divine.html

5. Many modern readers fail to understand that the Word of God is foremost Jesus Christ, and only secondarily the written text.

This is very simple, really. Yet few people seem to get this. The Bible is not "The Word of God". The Bible is "Words about God". The Word of God is described most famously by John:

John 1.1, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

The Word of God is Jesus, who is God embodied in human form. God's ultimate self-communication does not come in a book, but in a Person.

The Bible needs to be accurate enough to get us into relationship with this embodied Word of God. It does not have to be perfect history or flawless science. It does not even have to be great literature (some of it is, but some of it is not).

It just needs to tell us enough to know Jesus and follow him as Lord.

Jesus is the Point of the Bible. He is the target which the trajectory of the Bible ultimately points us to, no matter how many detours the Bible takes along the way.

That is why, when the Bible describes its own purpose, it says this:

2Timothy 3.15–17
[15] The sacred writings… are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Notice, verse 17 does NOT say:

"so that everyone may have a flawless record of ancient history"

or

"so that everyone may have a transcript of creation science"

or even

"so that believers may have religious knowledge to make them know they are right and non-believers are wrong"

rather

What Scripture gives us is for action, to help us live a Christ-like life "proficient and equipped for every good work". Scripture is not a repository of data and facts to know, but rather wisdom to live as we follow Jesus.

And the qualities of "inerrant" (without scientific or historical flaw) or "infallible" (without fallacy, ignorance, or error) are really out of place to describe the Bible. First of all, these adjectives describe what the Bible is NOT rather than what it IS. Second, they operate within the rules and worldview of modern Western European categories, which the Bible does not.

Perhaps it is better to speak of the Bible as "reliable". When we follow its trajectory across history, it reliably leads us to the God who became embodied in Jesus. Or maybe we should merely use the word that 2Timothy uses above: Inspired (or in-breathed). The Spirit of God breathed and flowed through the authors and communities that formed the Bible, steadily steering them on a course to Christ. That is a much fuller idea of the Story we find in Scripture: It is fully reliable and thoroughly inspired to accomplish the purpose God gave it to us, which it to point us to The Point who is Jesus.

To treat the Bible any differently, or to read it through modern lenses of history and science (whether for or against it), is an adventure in missing The Point.

On Bin Laden's Death

2011-05-02T09:53:00.001-05:00

A Reading from 1st Timothy, chapter 2:

1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Today has been a day of celebration around the western world as we hear news that one of the leaders of world terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, has been killed.

But before we celebrate too hastily, I would like to remind you all of the gravity of this situation. Bin Laden's death, the death of his henchmen, and the death of the innocent human shields who were used to stop American bullets, are just the top of an immense heap of dead bodies and destruction.

Nearly 3000 innocent lives were lost on September 11, 2001, when the world trade center fell and the Pentagon burned. Since then, nearly 5000 brave men and women have been lost in the US Military, with many more injured and their families changed forever.

In the middle east, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, individuals and families have been torn apart and rent asunder by war. Many of these have been actively fighting for terror. But most of these are families like yours and mine caught in the crossfire of war.

So, when you think about the death of one man, remember what horrible cost it came at. And also remember this: The reason Osama Bin Laden needed to die is NOT for some juvenile sense of revenge, or "I told ya so", or "we're gonna kick your butt".

The reason Bin Laden needed to die is NOT because of his religion. Islam, when rightly understood, is a religion of peace. The word Islam means both "submission" and "peace". Those who practice Islam are supposed to submit themselves to the peace and harmony of the whole human family. And this is precisely what Bin Laden did not do.

The reason Bin Laden needed to die is for the protection of the innocent. He was the head of a global terror network that targets innocent people, and destroys families and communities. This is what justice is: The defense of the defenseless. Bin Laden preyed on the defenseless, and used their suffering to advance his ideology of hate, exclusion, and injustice.

Now I want to give you a brief understanding of why sometimes war is necessary to ensure justice, to ensure the defense of the defenseless:

In Christian theology, every person is created in the image of God, and every person is a child of the God who is Father of all. That means every person is valuable. Every person is sacred. Everyone. Americans. Arabs. Muslims. Christians. Soldiers. And even though they are horribly misguided, terrorists too are children of God.

So, as our Scripture says "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".
God weeps any time he looses a child. God weeps any time one of his children kills another child. It is a sin, an evil, to kill another person intentionally.

But with that said, when given the choice of protecting the innocent who are oppressed, or protecting the guilty who are oppressing and abusing them, it is the lesser evil to stop the guilty. And when the guilty are literally hell bent on hating and destroying others, sometimes the only way to stop them is death.

And that is why the same Scripture also says that it is the job of "those in authority"- our President, our elected officials, and our Military- to provide the conditions "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness". They cannot help us live peaceful lives while allowing people to spread terror and destruction.

So, a war of justice, a war to defend the defenseless, is a lesser evil than allowing a group of killers to keep killing. The death of Osama Bin Laden, who was hell bent on killing the innocent, is a lesser evil than allowing him to keep holding the reigns of terror and harming God's children.

While this may not warrant whoops of joy (for the death of anyone is not an occasion for joy in God's sight), it may warrant a sigh of relief. It may warrant a congratulations to our brave soldiers who risk their lives upholding justice.

But it also warrants something else: It warrants a renewal of our own efforts to create a just world, filled with peace and health and wholeness.

Because I will tell you, unless the basic conditions of human dignity and justice are not met around the world, hatred and terror will still keep raising its demonic head. Unless the people of both America and the Middle East KNOW that they live in a society where the innocent are protected, where there is access to healthy food and clean water, where all are educated and have medical care, and where people are free to become who God made them to be- unless THIS happens, there will ALWAYS be Bin Ladens who arise to channel people's fear and frustration into hatred and violence.

Unless we work together to create a just society, someone crazier, more hateful, more violent than Bin Laden will certainly arise to fill the void left by his death. This is not a time of complacency, where we can sit back and say "He's dead, no worries now!".

NO! This is a time to redouble our prayers, redouble our efforts to bring about the peace and justice of God on Earth. This is what Jesus himself called the Kingdom of God: A Kingdom where everyone is at peace, everyone is healthy, everyone is protected, everyone is healed, everyone has what they need, regardless of what culture, nationality, race, gender, or religion they are.

America has been blessed- YOU have been blessed- so that you can be a blessing to others. You have been given talents and skills and access to resources that people in other countries only DREAM of. You are the tools God will use- if you will let him- to bring about his peace on Earth and across the Earth, so that people will find no need for fear or terror or war anymore.

So is it good that Bin Laden is dead? Yes, it is better than him staying alive to maim and kill others. But his death will not stop the cycle of violence. The only thing that can stop this endless cycle of violence is compassion, is love, is a commitment to use our resources to bring about the peaceful Kingdom of God. Let us commit ourselves to be people of peace, and spread the healing and compassion we see embodied in Jesus, who is the Prince of Peace. Amen.

Thoughts on Gaga's "Judas"

2011-04-23T23:55:00.001-05:00

For most folks inclined to hate Gaga, I think she spoon feeds them material in her song Judas. Once people hear the following lyric, I bet many will nod with a self-satisfied grin and say "told ya so!":

"In the most Biblical sense,
I am beyond repentance
Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind..."

But is there more to this song than sheer shock? Perhaps. I think a lot will be revealed when we see the video that goes with the song. But, in lieu of the video, I will say this:

The charitable interpretation is that she is exploring her own deep struggle between trying to follow the love and compassion of Jesus, while being constantly treated as a traitor and whore by religious insiders. Thus she identifies strongly with both Jesus (as a follower of his way) and Judas (as a maligned traitor figure). I think this is represented in the following lyric:

"Jesus is my virtue / Judas is the demon I cling to"

In this interpretation, she has a deep compassion for Judas because she deeply identifies with his plight. To her, he is a misunderstood, misidentified traitor figure who was actually doing his best to follow Jesus (like her).

That's the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable interpretation is that she created a catchy dance tune with ambiguous and controversial religious lyrics, and then released it as close to Easter as possible to maximize publicity and sales.

My final interpretation will depend a lot on the video, and the iconography she uses in it. If it seems to have some substance and introspective depth to it, I would incline toward the charitable interpretation. If it's just a bunch of skin and shock, I will incline toward the uncharitable.

Ode to Infotainment

2011-04-09T16:24:00.001-05:00

Ode to Infotainment
2011. Nathan L. Bostian

In an age of simple slogans and blustery books / How shall we show an argument's lame?

Some resort to snide sneers and haughty looks / But that only fans the emotional flame.

Some complain of ad hominems and ad hocs / But that sounds like an unending whine.

Some argue with evidence and logic / But that only casts pearls before swine.

Of all the ways one may disagree / With a pundit's pride and brawn:

I suppose the most effective may be / To simply shrug and yawn.

Location:Champions Ln,San Antonio,United States

Developmental Revelation and Divine Violence

2011-02-25T14:12:00.007-06:00

1. The Puzzle of Developmental Revelation:
I have long puzzled over the problem of so-called "progressive revelation" in Scripture. This is the fact that clearly, certain concepts about God, and God's relation to the world (especially in judgement), seems to change radically over the course of Scripture. In particular, we glimpse an often messy trajectory that goes from the divine sanction of violence in the early Hebrew Scriptures, to divine rejection of violence in Christ.

For many reasons, I prefer to refer to this fact as "developmental revelation", because it is not a clear and clean "progress" over time. There is, for instance, clearly divine mercy present in the very beginnings of Scripture all the way through, such as when we find God clothing Adam and Eve in animal skins and providing a new place for their life after "the Fall". Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures- even during their most bloodthirsty sections- God is repeatedly referred to as "slow to anger" and abundant in loving-kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. It is this God whom non-violent Jesus calls "Father".

And likewise, divine violence is present even in the most "peaceful" parts of the New Testament. Jesus talks more about hell and judgment than any other single Biblical figure. St. Paul can turn from discussing radical self-sacrificial neighbor-love (cf. Rom 12) to speaking of how the government has divine sanction to "bear the sword… to punish evil doers" (cf. Rom 13). The very last book of the Bible, Revelation, speaks of bloody wars and crushing victories wrought by Jesus Himself. And although these visions can (and should!) be interpreted as Jesus crushing spiritual forces of sin and wickedness, and not flesh and blood people, it is still clear that images of divine violence are abundant in the New Testament.

So, we do not have a clear "progress" from divine sanction of violence to divine rejection of violence. But, we do have a trend, a development, a trajectory that heads in that direction. This development is rather like the concept of child development, as a child grows in certain capacities, while other capacities are stunted or even retarded temporarily, only to grow and "catch up" later. One quick example is that older children right before puberty are often able to follow directions better, and make rational decisions easier, than teens in the midst of the hormonal onslaught of puberty, even though the teens are physically and cognitively better developed in a number of ways. It is this kind of halting, stuttering development of God's relation to the world we see in Scripture.

And while there are dozens of other developmental themes that could be named from Scripture (such as the development of monotheism or the development of the concept of Messiah), I want to hone in on this issue of "divine violence" as the paradigmatic problem in developmental revelation. It is clear that in the earliest Hebrew Scriptures God is pictured as sanctioning, and in some cases ordering, and in some causes causing, violence against individuals and communities. But, by the end of the Christian Scriptures, it is clear that violence is to be avoided at all costs, even to the point of self sacrifice on behalf of one's own enemies, as Jesus both teaches (cf. Mat 5) and embodies on the cross (cf. Rom 5).

And we must also note that the developmental revelation in Scripture has substantial overlap with the concept of "development of doctrine", in which the Church progressively develops the trajectory of Scripture as it travels through the concerns of contemporary culture. But, I want to clearly differentiate developmental revelation from developmental doctrine.

Developmental revelation involves the action of God in the event(s) of revelation, and it's subsequent recording in Scripture. Developmental doctrine involves the reflection of the community of God on these records of revelation. Developmental revelation would trace the trajectory of an issue through Scripture, such as the development of the concept of Messiah. Developmental doctrine would trace the implications of the totality of Scripture and Tradition on a specific issue throughout the history of the Church. An instance of this would be to trace the elaboration of the meaning of the Incarnation through the seven ecumenical councils, and it's implications on worship, evangelism, and social engagement for the Church. In general, developmental revelation deals with the question of what God has done, while developmental doctrine deals with the question of what the Church does with what God has done.

2. The Non-Solution of a "Growing God":
So, it is easier to understand why developmental doctrine would change over time, because it deals with the human activity of reflecting and elaborating on the event of divine revelation. What is harder to understand is why God, who is perfect, would seem to change in his relation to humanity over time in God's own self-revelation. Surely a perfect unchanging God would be basically the same in appearance across time.

A frequent solution is to say that God Himself changes, develops and grows over time. Perhaps revelation develops in a halting, stuttering way because God Himself is developing in a halting, stuttering way. Some even go so far as to say that we, as humans, help God in God's own moral development over time. In short, God needs creation to fully become God. Without us, God would be locked into a lower developmental level.

But this is problematic for a number of reasons. Is God really worthy of being called God if God needs us to be God? And if so, doesn't that raise us up to a godlike level? This both diminishes who and what God is, while exaggerating (sinfully) our own sense of self-importance. Because it implies imperfection and instability in God, it seems to make God less than God. Certainly such a "developmental" God could not be trusted to be a moral ground for us, or a clear hope for the future. What if God fundamentally changes God's mind about the nature of good and evil (for instance, making hate good and love bad?). Or what if God is not ultimately able to carry out God's promises of healing and restoration?

Clearly, this "solution" of positing a "growing God" behind developmental revelation causes more problems than it solves. Although this point can (and has been) argued, let us bracket out this possibility for the time and see if we can come to an understanding of developmental revelation which does not posit instability in Godself.

3. The Non-Solution of "Shrinking Scripture":
Another frequently explored solution is to simply deny that God has inspired, or is revealed, in certain portions of Scripture (especially those that sanction divine violence). There are many grounds this is done on, whether through literary criticism, ideological criticism, or historical criticism (or just ignoring certain passages in the life of the church by never reading them!). But, the problem is that if we arbitrarily excise the parts of Scripture we find problematic on "anti-violence" grounds, we have no real grounds to object when someone excises scriptural teaching about love, charity, and forgiveness on "pro-violence" grounds.

Let us take to heart the historical example of pro-Nazi Biblical scholarship during the Third Reich: It is possible to use the tools of Biblical criticism to create a pro-violence canon of Scripture which validates our ideology, and destroys those we label as ideological enemies. Or, we could look at the ancient example of the heretic Marcion, who dealt with this issue by positing a good God of Love in the New Testament, and an evil Jewish Demiurge of hate in the Old Testament. Then he simply removed from his canon of Scripture all the writings he though tainted by the evil Demiurge, leaving only portions of the Gospels and some of Paul's letters.

And there is another major problem with simply "shrinking Scripture" to fit our ideology, other than the fact that the same arbitrary logic can be employed to create a pro-violence canon of Scripture. This problem is that we miss an essential dimension of our relationship with God: The dimension of struggle and of "wrestling" with God through the messiness of historical process (cf. Gen 32 and the identity of "Israel"). It is precisely this struggle and wrestling through issues that enables us to become fully formed disciples of Jesus Christ. Without doing the "heavy lifting" of struggling through Scripture with God, we will simply be too weak to "take up our cross" and follow Jesus.

To take back up the idea of child development here, it would be a bit like a parent wanting to "fast forward" their child from a cute kid to a fully grown adult without having to go through all the messiness of teenage development. It simply doesn't work that way. The messiness of teenage life, with all its drama and mistakes and heartaches, is a necessary step to becoming a mature adult. So also, the messiness of developmental revelation seems to be entirely necessary to the full development of individual spirituality, the community of the Church, and even a fully flourishing humanity.

So, just as it is not wise to try and solve the developmental revelation problem through recourse to a "growing God", so also we cannot shrink Scripture to get rid of the embarrassing parts. Instead, we must find a constructive use- a Spirit taught lesson to learn- from every verse of Scripture. After all, the classic Christian tradition us that "all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable". We have been given the deposit- the ENTIRE deposit- of canonical Scripture as a gift from God to form us in Christ's image as we wrestle through it. Thus, we need to use all of it.

4. The Most Problematic "Solution":
Perhaps the both the easiest, and the most problematic solution is to simply say that there are two sides to God: Love for God's elect, and Hate for the damned. There are certainly a number of theological systems that take this "easy path" out of the problem of divine violence. For them, there is a category of people that God simply despises and does not love, nor does God want to heal or save them. The theological reasons for this divine hatred is different depending on which theological system is used: Perhaps they are a member of the wrong sect, denomination, or religion; Perhaps they have committed an "unforgivable sin"; Or perhaps they were pre-destined to be damned before time.

No matter the rationale for divine hatred, this provides the easy solution to divine violence: God kills people, and orders them killed, because they are among the damned. Hatred justifies violence. And since God is the standard of justice, God's violence and hatred are automatically justified.

Now, it should be patently obvious that this is not the God revealed in Jesus Christ. This is not the God who dies for God's enemies, nor the God who forgives undeserving sinners. This God is more like the devil (if not identical), and deserves to be called by the lowercase "god".

Such a "god" is self-contradictory with both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. This "god" is a hypocrite for calling us to "love our enemies" and "be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect" (cf. Mat 5), when in fact this "god" hates, damns and even kills his own enemies. Such a "god" of exclusion and hate completely undermines any motive we would have to love our enemies (Mat 5) or love our neighbor (Luke 10) or love "the other" (Romans 13). Such a "god" cannot be reconciled with the God who is Love announced by John (1John 4), and lived out by Jesus Christ in self-sacrifice on behalf of his enemies (Rom 5).

And, if this were not bad enough, such a God dissolves the entire basis for our own hope in Christ's salvation. For, if God hates some and loves others, and if God's will is hidden from humanity, how can we tell if we are "in" or "out" of God's Love? Theologies that emphasize divine exclusion of some at the expense of others tend to be obsessed with these questions of "how do we know if we are saved?"

This solution is far from a solution, for it creates far more problems than it solves. It undercuts our faith in God, our love for others, and our hope in salvation. Thus, it seems that a God of hate and exclusion is demonic, and both a "growing God" and "shrinking Scripture" are dead ends. Yet, there are four very successful clues which get us a very long way down the road of dealing with the problem of developmental revelation: Narrative, Accommodation, Deconstruction, and Apokatastasis.

5. The Clue of Narrative:
It is often said that we should read Scripture as a Drama of unfolding plot, in which events progressively intertwine leading to the climax and consummation of the Story in Christ. I believe this narrative approach is perhaps the most fruitful way to understand Scripture. And as such, it is conceivable that the Divine Author could and should leave certain things "dark" so they come to light later on. This is surely a hallmark of good story telling.

Yet, as helpful as this is in many regards, it still seems to put God in an inauthentic light as regards violence in particular. In Genesis 6 God destroys the world in a flood. In Leviticus 19 God seems to demand "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life". From Joshua to 2Chronicles God orders executions, warfare, jihad, and even Canaanite genocide. Attempts to link these facts in a "plot progression" to the absolute non-violence we find in Jesus seem to fall flat in my opinion. The gaps are simply to wide to bridge from a strictly narrative standpoint. We have to do more than show a simple plot progression from this concept of divine violence in the Hebrew Scriptures to the God of healing shown in Jesus.

6. The Clue of Accommodation:
So, we come to the next (very helpful) clue: Divine accommodation to human limitations in understanding and comprehending God's plans. This is the idea that God has to limit His revelation to fit into the concepts and abilities of people in their time. I think this gets us a but further with the issue of divine violence. In raising children I know that there is a time when children are young that it is appropriate to discipline them in a very "hands on" way (for instance, grabbing them before they cross a street, taking the stolen cookie from their hand, or even a well controlled swat on the rear end). But as they get older and more developed, it is totally inappropriate to use such means. Instead, you discuss and debate as adults.

Perhaps something similar is going on in Scripture. More ancient peoples could only understand and respond to harshness, whereas later peoples could conceptually understand more about God without "the carrot and stick". This is certainly another part of the answer, but it has significant weaknesses as well, both from the human side and the divine side.

From the human side, in terms of the level of violence in society it is difficult to say the Roman Empire of Jesus' day was significantly more advanced than previous cultures. There were certainly intellectual-conceptual advances available in the Hebrew prophets and Greek philosophers for people of apostolic times, as compared to ancient Israelites living prior to 500 BC.

Yet, we could not say that these advances left their cultures less violent, or able to understand the need for non-violence better. The Jewish-Roman wars of 66 AD and 135 AD were as blood thirsty as any ancient war, and the Roman Empire was built upon violence and coercive military control. So, from the human side the people of 100 AD were no more equipped for the revelation of non-violence any more than the people of 1000 BC. So why did God go ahead and reveal it in Christ at that time?

From the divine side there is also a problem, especially if we equate divine violence with developmental childhood discipline. The genocide commanded and enacted by God in the early Hebrew Bible is not the divine equivalent of "spanking" a young humanity. It is more like infanticide. So, while the clue of divine accommodation is helpful in some ways, we still need to seek more appropriate clues.

7. The Clue of Deconstruction:
Perhaps what is going on is that God is using violence to deconstruct violence in the Hebrew Scriptures, in order to show that violent solutions do not work in the long term. If so, this would be a case of God teaching us through error. After all, what is one of the most effective ways of learning why God and violence do not mesh, and that violence ultimately destroys God's purposes?

The most effective way is a case study: What actually happens when a group of people claim that violence is sanctioned by God to bring about a "better world"? What happens when we claim that violent natural disasters are created by God? What happens when we claim that God is on our side, and has ordered war or genocide against our enemies? What kind of society do these claims create?

Perhaps stories like Noah's flood and Joshua's genocide are errors that God wants in the canon of Scripture, in order to teach us what it looks like when we get it wrong. After all, the tragedy of the flood did not bring about the righteousness God desires. Rather, it brought about Noah's drunk curses and a repeated cycle of destruction within a few generations. And what did Joshua's genocide bring about? A pure Israel? No. It created a system of violent tribal feuds, increasing idolatry, and a spiral of violence during the period of "the Judges". What did the "Wars of Yahweh", which were waged by the Davidic kings of Israel and Judah, accomplish in the long term? Idolatry and injustice, leading to destruction and exile (in 722 and 587 BC respectively).

Perhaps God wanted these in Scripture as a life lesson why claims of divine violence are (a) ultimately false, and (b) don't work. When God comes to us in human form, He tells us that we are to judge a tree by it's fruit (cf. Mat 7). If a tree produces good fruit, it is of God. If it produces death and destruction, it is not of God.

Using Jesus' simple diagnostic test, and applying it to practically every instance of divinely sanctioned violence in the Hebrew Bible, we would have to say that the long term fruit in Jewish society indicates that these actions were never from God. Thus, the true nature of God as Love is revealed in an inverse, deconstructive way in these stories of divine violence. In this sense they are "inspired" and deserve to stay in Scripture.

Yet, such a reading is only possible in a "big picture" sense of looking at Jewish history across time. In the more narrow, immediate read inside these stories, it seems clear that God does sanction or cause these violent acts. Even if, in a big picture sense, it is justified to use such a deconstructive hermeneutic, it still feels wrong and implausible in a narrow "line by line" reading of Scripture.

I am convinced that part of the narrative function of these passages is to show us, long term, that violence cannot accomplish God's purposes (especially in the light of Christ's self-sacrifice on the cross by which he overcomes violence by enduring violence without retaliation). Yet, even though I am convinced of this, I feel that this type of reading of the text comes dangerously close to editing out the parts of the Bible we don't like on ideological grounds, leading to a "shrinking Scripture" approach. This, as I have said before, is not a feasible solution to developmental revelation.

8. The Clue of Apokatastasis:
Yet another clue is to relativize the violence by putting forth the idea of a final eschatological healing. Just as the "tragedy" of an amputation is relativized if it results in saving the life of the amputee, so also perhaps the "tragedy" of divine violence and genocide will be relativized by ultimate salvation and healing of all at the end of time. This is implicit in the Eastern Orthodox claim of "apokatastasis" taught by people as diverse as the 4th century Trinitarian theologian Gregory of Nyssa, and the 21st century physicist-theologian John Polkinghorne, and other Christian thinkers throughout the centuries. Drawing on a panoply of Biblical texts such as Hosea 5:14-6:2, Wisdom 11.21-12.2, John 12.32, Romans 5, 8.31-39, Colossians 1:15-20, and Philippians 2.3-11, they postulate that all things will ultimately be healed and reconciled to God through Christ at the end of History.

While I hope strongly that Christ will accomplish the saving of all that can be saved, this solution is still deficient on two grounds: First, apokatastasis can only be a hope, not a dogmatic certainty. To demand that all people choose salvation is a denial of human freedom, and thus a denial of God's image in humanity. We cannot demand that all are saved while destroying their selves in the process. Humans must remain free to deny Love and choose evil, for without that radical freedom they cease to be human and become robotic automata.

So, as sad as it sounds, there must remain the chance that people who have died at the hands of divine violence may not ultimately be healed. But, this is not the only problem with apokatastasis as a solution to divine violence. The second problem is that such an idea seems to rob dignity and meaning from such deaths.

Can we imagine God saying: "Aw, you and your baby died during Joshua's genocide of the Canaanites? No problem! There's resurrection!" If apokatastasis is the only solution to divine violence, it seems a bit flippant and trite. Don't get me wrong. A death died in the hope of ultimate healing is better than a death died without hope. Yet, it seems that there has to be something else that gives such death and suffering at the hands of divine violence an inherent meaning and purpose in space and time, and not just beyond history.

9. The Clue of Transposition:
So, I was pondering this problem, and I was trying to find yet another clue to help me make sense of developmental revelation, especially as concerns the sanction and later rejection of divine violence we find in Scripture. I wanted something that would both unify and go beyond these insights of narrative, accommodation, deconstruction, and apokatastasis.

And then, remembering a concept from CS Lewis' sermon "transposition", I hit upon something that seems to unify the issue better. The concept of transposition, as used by CS Lewis, is an extended analogy using a musical metaphor. He compares how a musician might "transpose" a piece of music intended for an orchestra to be used by one instrument (say a piano or a guitar). In the process of transposition, something is "lost" in the translation, for it is not as rich as the full experience of an orchestra. Yet, there is also something that remains true to the basic "shape" or "form" of the musical piece, so that we hear it and recognize it as a transposed piece of music.

CS Lewis, if my memory serves me right, goes on to posit that divine revelation, and in particular the Incarnation of God in Christ, is like a process of divine transposition. The same form or essence of God is seen and heard, but in a simpler way that corresponds to the limitations of the medium of human language (in Scripture) and human life (in Jesus).

This concept of transposition has a lot in common with accommodation, except instead of framing the issue in terms of "what conceptual resources did individual humans have to understand God's will?", we frame it slightly different as "what total resources were available to God in human society to heal and restore humans?". At the basis of this idea of transposition is the supposition that God limits Godself to work with the resources inherent in a society- worldview, social structures, technology, economic goods, culture- and uses the potentiality native to them to lead them into greater and greater healing. God does not create new resources out of thin air, but works from within the resources they have to expand what is already there.

So, I propose a medical "thought experiment" to help us understand how this idea of transposition helps us deal with the problem of divine violence in developmental revelation.

Let us imagine there is a physician from the year 3000 AD, whose sole mission in life is to heal others. This physician has knowledge of the human condition and medical techniques beyond anything we can imagine. Furthermore, she has access to medical technology to carry out his knowledge. Her technology is beyond anything we can understand or create, and includes a state of the art hospital, targeted gene therapies, cellular nanobots, disease scanners, and healing force-fields, all of which allow her to cure almost any disease without having to do the invasive violence of actually cutting into the patent.

Now, let us suppose that our doctor gets trapped in a time machine and taken back to 1000 BC without any of her technology. She suddenly has to "transpose" all her healing knowledge and create a hospital and medical instruments using pottery and bronze age technology. How would her healing practice differ from 3000 AD? I would estimate that even with her knowledge, her cures would look barbaric by 3000 AD standards. Furthermore, I bet her care would necessarily include much more "invasive violence" in the sense of cutting her patients with imprecise bronze instruments. And even furthermore, she would find herself condoning and using "medical violence" she would never use or condone if she had 3000 AD technology. And finally, despite her skill, I bet her mortality rate would be very high by 3000 AD standards.

Let us suppose she was able to gradually get her time machine to go forward in time at 500 year increments. Each time she has a multi-year sojourn before she can jump forward. Each time she transposes her medical knowledge and sets up a "hospital" using the technology and resources of the time. As she goes from 1000 BC to 500 BC to 0 AD to 500 AD (and so on) she will find incremental advances in metal working, worldview, sanitation, and technology that allows her medical practice to become more effective, and less violent and invasive, with better mortality rates.

By the time 4000 years has passed, her need for surgical violence will be done away with completely, as most of the healing is done by using her technology to stimulate the body's own healing resources to restore health to the patients. Furthermore, her 4000 year long history of "medical violence" will show that barbaric medical violence can never bring about the full healing of 3000 AD standards. Yet, given the resources available in earlier ages, such violence was better than doing nothing.

I think ultimately, the developmental revelation in Scripture, especially in regards to divine violence, may be very akin to this thought experiment. It is God's desire to heal and restore all of Creation to union with Godself. Furthermore, God has perfect unchanging knowledge of how to bring about this healing. However, in allowing creation genuine freedom, growth, and development over time, God has limited Himself to working through the resources available in any given time.

The result is that all revelation- even divine violence- is done for healing, redemptive purposes in accordance with the best resources of the time. It may seem barbaric to us now, but it was the best option at the time with the least mortality. It may seem cruel by our standards, but at the time it was better than nothing. Yet, as we move through history, we find that God relies less and less on external "divine violence" to heal and change society, and instead relies more and more on the inner transformation wrought by the Holy Spirit to give people a "new heart" (cf. Eze 36).

I think this type of "medical" developmental understanding, combined with a sense if the outworking Plot of God's Story, as well as the hope of the full final healing of Creation through Christ in the apokatastasis, leads us to a healthy understanding of developmental revelation, without falling into the trap of a "growing God" or a "shrinking Scripture".

10. The Clues Applied to the Case of the Death Penalty
The last thing I want to do is apply this understanding of developmental revelation to a specific problematic issue: Namely the issue of the death penalty. In the Hebrew Torah, the death penalty is specified for a number of offenses, some of which seem absurd to us now. But, in the same Torah, the 6th commandment of the Ten Commandments also specified "Do not murder". By the time of Jesus, we find a deliberate rejection of the death penalty of the Torah, specifically the command to stone to death a person caught in adultery (cf. John 8). But not only this, Jesus rejects the Levitical concept of retribution ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth") taught in Leviticus 19 (cf. Mat 5.38-48).

Over time, many Christian Churches as diverse as Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have come to the position that the death penalty, like slavery, is not a genuine option for Christian societies. While this is debated by Christian advocates for the death penalty, it is an historical fact that, from the most ancient Church Fathers, to the largest contemporary Christian bodies, the death penalty has been flatly rejected on Scriptural grounds, even though there are Scriptures that allow it, and even command it, in the Torah.

Is this a contradiction within Scripture? I think if we look at it from the developmental "clues" I have named above, the answer is no.

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the God revealed in Jesus Christ ultimately is about saving and healing life, and not about destroying it. Whatever God does developmentally, God is doing it to save, heal, and restore as much of humanity as possible at any given time, without taking away their freedom and making them "un-human".

If we look at the possibility of a redemptive judicial and penal system, in light of the social resources available in 1500 BC, versus the resources available in 2000 AD, I think it makes sense how God has "transposed" his desire to save life based on these different sets of resources.

A penal system that is able to incarcerate and redeem criminals is only possible in a society which has a vast amount of technological, social, and economic resources. I would like to offer a brief spontaneous list of resources necessary to run an effective penitentiary system that is able to both keep criminals safe and keep society safe from criminals:
- A stable food, energy, water, and sewage supply.
- A working system of laws, applied impartially.
- A judicial system free of corruption.
- Jails with ample space, sanitation, and security, so that criminals cannot escape.
- An economic system that can fund security guards, cafeteria workers, janitors, wardens, therapists, chaplains, etc. without making the rest of society go broke.
- A means of making sure that the worst criminals are not able to operate crime syndicates from within prisons and thus continue to harm society and those who guard them.

Without any one of these resources (and I could name more that are needed), prisons would become so dangerous to the inmates, the guards, and society that they could not function without getting rid of the most dangerous criminals.

In our society, it is possible to have all of these things, and thus remove the need to put to death the worst criminals. But what about a 1500 BC semi-nomadic society that lived on the brink of starvation during any given year?

They had literally NONE of the resources I mentioned above. They had no way of keeping prisoners for life, or even for extended periods of time, without extreme danger to both the inmates within and society without.

For them, what type of legal system would save the most life possible? If you were God, working through human spokespersons, what principals and laws would you command to save and heal the most people possible? How would you transpose the divine desire to save and restore all of humanity into a specific, limited culture like that?

I think, if we were going to be completely honest, we would have to say that the legal system of the Torah is an admirable attempt at such a "transposition". Granted that much of it looks downright barbaric given our current social resources and level of "developmental revelation". But most of the Torah can be seen as an attempt to transpose divine redemptive justice into the mode of a limited, barbaric, bronze age society.

Even a law as blatantly barbaric as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" is lightyears ahead of a concept of unlimited retribution for a limited crime. For instance, it shows that Jacob's destruction of an ENTIRE city because of the rape of his daughter Dinah was ultimately an unjustified act of asymmetric retribution (cf. Gen 34). This principle of symmetric, limited retribution begins the process of helping people realize that the "punishment should fit the crime", which eventually leads to a concept that "the punishment should heal the criminal" in centuries to come.

Likewise, we can look at direct acts of divine violence, such as the flood of Noah (Gen 6-9, which I assume flooded the "world" of the ancient East, and not the "world" in a global sense) or look at divinely commanded the Canaanite genocide (cf. Joshua). In wrestling through these difficult texts, I think we may discover that these may have been a last ditch, stop-gap method to stop cyclical violence in societies that had no means of stopping or punishing violent acts. Perhaps the society of Canaan or the area that Noah lived in had become so lawless and chaotic that there simply were no resources left for God to use to stem the tide of violence. The description of both societies in Scripture would seem to indicate that they were locked in such systemic, chaotic, unredeemable violence. In Canaan in particular, the land was said to be full of "abominations" such as child sacrifice.

Perhaps then these may be seen as divine "mercy killings", or social "amputations" done to stop gangrene from killing the entire organism of society. This does NOT mean that such acts of divine violence ultimately brought about a righteous, lasting society. They did not. In fact, they bred more violence. But, perhaps, the violence they bred was substantially less than what would have happened otherwise.

This type of understanding could lead us to understand how these events were sad, last-ditch "transpositions" of divine mercy into the worst social situations imaginable. But, at the same time they clearly point us BEYOND these solutions, because they are shown to not work in the long run. Rather, they shock us, disgust us, and lead us to yearn for a solution of ultimate healing beyond all the killing.

Furthermore, given our 21st century resources, and our position in "developmental revelation", it makes it clear that such violent solutions are emphatically NOT AVAILABLE to us anymore. We can no longer kill anyone in God's Name as if we were justified in using divine violence. Perhaps the central message in all the Hebrew stories of divine violence is precisely that divine violence can never be justified as a lasting solution to any social problem. Without mercy beyond the violence to redeem the violence we are forever lost in destruction.

Even though our resources are vastly superior to 1500 BC or 0 AD, they are still limited. As a society and as individuals, we still find ourselves in positions where police or soldiers may still be forced to use violence to defend the defenseless, as a last ditch solution. Such an action is a "lesser evil" approach, in which protection of the innocent at the expense of criminals is a lesser evil than allowing criminals to keep victimizing the innocent.

Yet, this approach is no longer God's solution, but a lesser evil that falls far short of God's will for us. It is necessary as a transposition of divine mercy into our limited resources, but ultimately will destroy us if not met with a greater mercy. It is this greater mercy that we should strive for. In fact, we can hope for, and work for, a society where violence is no longer necessary at all, even in the "last ditch" sense. May we work for, and pray for, such a society where all the "swords are beaten into plowshares" (cf. Isa 2), because this is the clear trajectory of the developmental revelation of God in Christ.

The Sacrament of Servanthood

2011-01-27T19:35:00.001-06:00

Based on Matthew 25.31-46
Copyright 2011 © The Rev. Nate Bostian

I want to start today by doing something that every preaching manual, and every good preacher, will agree is something you should never do: I want to start by talking about a word that many people find confusing, many others think of as boring, and almost everyone will agree has nothing to do with the subject of hunger.

That word is "sacrament".

When I say the word sacrament, what images and ideas come to your mind?

Do you think of a very ritualistic worship service, filled with priests in strange gowns, the air thick with incense, candles and icons, and chanting in some long dead language?

Do you think of formal ceremonies, stuffy people, standing and kneeling, and endless prayers filled with "thees" and "thous"?

Or perhaps you think of some specific ritual. Maybe it's eating bread and drinking wine in the Lord's Supper. Or maybe it is baptizing someone in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Or maybe even a confessional booth, or an old movie with some holy water and an exorcist.

Some folks may even be offended by the mention of sacrament. That's old fashioned and outdated. That's something THOSE people do. We need NEW ideas. We need to take ACTION to deal with hunger and homelessness in our city.

So, what's this crazy talk about sacraments?

Well, I gotta be honest with you. It is the idea of sacrament that made me start taking social justice and community action seriously. Without a sacramental mentality, I would probably still have a sentimental mentality that faith in Christ is merely a personal reality that I save for Church, but does not actually impact the world that I live in.

Now some of you may find this befuddling and baffling. Aren't sacraments merely rituals that you do in a little chapel separated from the outside world? How can sacraments have any effect on how we view social justice? How can private rituals lead to public engagement with the powers and principalities that leave so many sick and homeless and hungry and hopeless?

Well, let me explain.

I'm an Episcopal Christian, that used to be a Charismatic Christian, that used to be a non-denominational Evangelical Christian, that used to be an agnostic anti-Christian. And believe it or not, I think God has taught me a lot at every stop along the way.

Being agnostic taught me to be skeptical and always research why I believe what I believe. Being Evangelical taught me that Jesus is real, God loves me, and the Bible is where God most directly speaks to us today. Being Charismatic taught me to rely on the power of the Holy Spirit, and to expect God to work in amazing ways when we least expect it.

But being Episcopal has taught me how God works through God's people, which is the living Body of Christ, alive and active in the world today. Because we are Christ's Body, God works through our hands and feet, through our eyes and ears, through our actions and words, and through our rituals and sacraments.

Or to put it another way: What we do with our bodies and with other people's bodies matters. What we do with our stuff matters. What we do in the world matters. And the reason is simple: Because God says that matter matters.

God made matter. God made the physical universe. God made the world with all of its seas and mountains and rivers and animals and people. And in the first chapter of the Bible, God looks at all the matter He made and he says "it is good". Not once. Not twice. Not three, four, or five times. But seven times in a row, in one chapter, God says "it is good, good, good, good, good, good, so very, very good".

In fact, God loves matter so much, that he became part of it. What makes Jesus' life so amazing is not just that He was born of a Virgin, or that He died and rose again. These events are amazing, no doubt. But what is even more amazing is that in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, God became embodied in a real human person, so that when we look upon Jesus, we see the face of God.

So, matter matters. God says matter is good, and God became embodied in material form in the person of Jesus.

But God doesn't stop there. God wants us to know that He is present in every facet of His creation. Although God is not contained by the world, and is always beyond what he creates, nevertheless the Bible also tells us that God is present every day, in every way, in all of creation. In every person, every cell, every molecule, every atom. God is there.

In speaking of Jesus, the letter of Ephesians say that he "ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things." [4.10] and before that it says there is "one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." [4.6]

And all throughout Scripture, the Spirit of God is shown as the Personal energy of God that moves through all of creation, making it alive, moving it onward into the fullness of the Kingdom of God. And it is IN this God- IN this Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- that we "live and move and have our being" [Acts 17.28].

And that brings us to right here, right now. God is all around us. Christ is here beside us. The Spirit is in each breath we take, and every move we make. We swim in the presence of God. We bump into people every day who are alive by the breath of God. And yet how often do we realize it?

How often do we take time to understand what an incredible privilege it is to be Christ's hands and feet, sharing His presence with the world, by the power of His Spirit dwelling in us?

I will be honest. I am a preacher. I am a priest. I do this for a living. And it is shameful how little I realize that I carry the life of God in me, and it is sad how often I forget that God's life lives in you as well.

And so we come to sacraments. Sacraments are moments of remembrance and recognition that God is right here, right now. That God is at work in matter and action, in our words and deeds.

In fact, this is exactly what one of the most ancient definitions of a sacrament tells us: "A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace". A sacrament is a sacred sign that God is at work in what we are doing. A sacrament is a sacred action in which the power of the Holy Spirit is sharing the very presence of Christ with us here and now.

And someone might say: Now preacher, are you going to tell me I gotta do these sacraments to get saved? Do I have to be baptized, or go to confession, or eat bread and wine to go to heaven?

And I would say that such a question misses the point. It isn't about whether this ritual or that ritual will get you in heaven. It is about being where God is. It is about joining in with the action of God in the world right here, right now.

You wouldn't choose to get married to someone, and then say "What is the minimum I can do and still stay married to you"? In the same way, you don't say to Jesus "What is the minimum I can do and still get into heaven?"

No! You say: "I love you Jesus! I want to be where you are at! I want to do what you are doing! I want what is important to you to be important to me!"

So, when Jesus says that he is present with us when we baptize in water, or when we lay hands on in prayer, or when we eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him, we want to be part of that. When Jesus says that "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them" [Mat. 18.20], we want to be part of that. We want to be with Jesus.

And yet, at first glance, most sacraments seem to be very little about social justice, or the healing of the world, or the feeding of the hungry. After all, Jesus may be present in the Lord's Supper as we eat the bread and wine, but that is hardly enough to feed a hungry child, much less a hungry adult!

I mean, can you imagine how many of those little wafers you would have to eat to get a full stomach?

But, the meaning of the sacrament of the Communion Meal works at a deeper level than that. Because in that sacrament, by making one meal sacred, it reminds us that all meals are sacred. If God works through the bread at this one place, at this one time, it means that God can work through any bread, any food, at any time. If God works through what we drink at this one meal, it reminds us that God works through "whoever gives someone a cup of cold water to drink" in the Name of Christ [Mat 10.42].

By making one meal sacred, Jesus makes all meals sacred. This Holy Meal reminds us that all our food is a gift from God, and that God's Spirit is at work through what we eat and drink, to make us healthy and holy as we grow into all the fullness of Christ.

And so, the very food we share with those in need is sacramental. God is at work in us, through us, to heal and make whole those who we feed. Our food is not just something to be eaten and forgotten, or thrown away like trash. Our food is an opportunity- a gateway- to experience God at work in our lives right here, right now.

In fact, as we eat and as we share food with others, we get a foretaste of heaven. And while that may sound absurd, think about it. What was Jesus' favorite image of the Kingdom of God?

Was it chubby angels with harps? No.

Was it crystal cathedrals and streets of gold? No.

It was the image of a feast. A great party spread with the finest of food and the fullness of fellowship with God and each other. Jesus' favorite image of God's Kingdom was simply this: A meal with good friends.

And to share a meal with someone in need is a foretaste of that eternal glory we will share with Jesus in the Kingdom.

So, it is not surprising that Jesus explicitly says that by reaching out to the least, the last, and the lost among us, we engage in a sacramental act through which we directly minister to Christ himself. In Matthew chapter 25, we find a series of parables about the coming of God's Kingdom. And in verses 31-46, we find a specific parable about how we find Jesus through serving the world in His Name.

And what he said 2000 years ago, he says to us today:

"Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me… Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me."

As far as I know, feeding the hungry, and sharing God's bounty with those in need, is not listed as an "official" sacrament in any Church. But that does not mean it is not a sacrament. For it is clear that Christ is present when we serve others. Servanthood is an outward and visible sign of God's grace working through us, energizing us to bring about the fullness of the Kingdom of God, as we share a table with each other.

I don't know about you. But I want more God in my life. I want to be wherever Jesus is at work. I want His Spirit to flow through me. And that is exactly what happens in the sacramental act of sharing a meal with those who have no food.

And it is this consciousness that finally got me to take social justice and community action seriously. Because, honestly, I can be pretty selfish most of the time. If it was up to me, I would not share my stuff. I would not want to go through the pain and hassle of reaching out to hurting, hungry people who will probably never be able to pay me back in material goods. If it was up to me, I would just want to stay in my comfort zone, and keep my stuff to myself. Maybe you can relate.

But, when I realize that my stuff is not my stuff, but it is on loan from God, it changes things. When I go further and realize that my stuff is not just stuff, but a sacramental means through which I can experience God as I share God's bounty with others, it turns my world upside down.

That is why sacraments are so revolutionary. It was the greatest trick the devil ever pulled to make us think that sacraments were just private rituals done to get us into heaven.

Instead, sacraments are revolutionary public acts through which God brings heaven into our communities, into our churches, into our relationships, and into us.

Are you willing to have your world turned upside down by the power of God working through you? Will you live out your calling to be Christ's hands and feet in the world? Then join me in sacrament. Join me in the sacrament of bread and wine by which Christ reminds us that all meals are sacred. And then join me in the sacrament of sharing our bounty with those in need. Christ will be there with us. i promise you.

Is Every Single Person a Child of God?

2010-05-12T23:25:00.002-05:00

An Essay Exploring the Universal Fatherhood of God in its Implications for our Mission as Followers of Jesus Christ.

Copyright © 2010.05.12 | The Rev. Nathan L. Bostian | natebostian@gmail.com

In the last few years, I have stumbled across a major moral problem among people who are dedicated, sincere, authentic followers of Jesus Christ. And this problem is a two-tier moral standard between how we treat those who are "in" and those who are "out" of the Christian fold.

And this problem revolves around the concept of who God is a Father to, and who are "children of God". There is one standard applied to Christians who are "God's children": The standard of unconditional, unselfish, sacrificial Love (cf. 1Corinthians 13). For those who are "in" the Christian fold, we should spare no effort or expense in helping them, and protecting them, and treating them with dignity.

However, I have found that the same people who hold the above moral standard toward Christians will completely change it when they want to defend hate speech, denial of basic human rights, the use of the death penalty, initiation of warfare, and the "collateral damage" to women, children, and non-combatants in warfare. They will claim that this behavior is justified, even welcomed by Jesus Christ, because these people are "not God's children". Because they are not "believers", or if they are of another religion, or if they practice a lifestyle we do not approve of, then they do not deserve to be treated with dignity. "They" can be mocked, excluded, persecuted, denied rights, and even killed, because God does not love them, or have the same kind of relationship with them, as God does with "us" who are really God's children.

Archbishop William Temple declared "The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members." Yet, teaching that God is not the Father of all people undermines this missional emphasis. Why reach out to others if we are not sure if God even loves them or wants them? Teaching that some people are not God's children lends validity to any type of violence proposed against "the Other". If we can clearly identify that someone else is "out" of God's Love, then we are fully justified in NOT loving them.

Thus, I would like to expound on the Biblical teaching that God is, in the fullest sense, the Father of all people. All people are children of God, regardless of religion or lack thereof, by virtue of being born into God's creation. In a secondary sense, which is derivative of God's Universal Fatherhood, Christian believers are God's children in a special way because they are aware of their status as God's children. Being a "child of God" is a religious intuition present in many religions, and denied in others. But the fullest assurance of our identity as children of God, and the fullest understanding of that identity, only comes by being "in Christ", who is our "Firstborn Brother" in God, and the "only unique" (μονογενῆ) eternal Son of God.

I apologize in advance to those who are wary of overly-gendered use of language in discussions of God and God's relation to us. The nature of this discussion is aimed at those who tend to identify themselves as both "Biblical" and "Conservative", and thus there is an emphasis on using terms that are as close to the original Scriptural terminology as possible. Thus, I have focused explicitly on the "Fatherhood" of God. This concept has strong overlap with the concept of "Divine Parenthood" in general, as well as "Divine Motherhood" [cf. Gen 1:2; Nu 11:12; Deut. 32.10-18; Psa. 91:4; Isa 66:13; 42:14; 44:2; 44.24; Matt. 23:37; Joh 1:12-13; 3:5-6; Tit 3:4-7; Jam 1:18 Pro 8; Wis 7; Sir 1]. These would be fruitful concepts to explore elsewhere.

However, to drive home the point I wish to make, I have chosen to stick almost exclusively with "Father" and "Fatherhood" [πατήρ, πατριά] to describe our relationship with the first Person of the Trinity in this essay. In terms of our relationship to God, I have tried to use the more gender neutral concept of "child", "children", and "childhood". These terms represent the Biblical terms "son" and "sonship" [υἱός, υἱοθεσία], as well as the term for "child", "newborn one", or "baby" [τέκνον]. I have only used son where it seemed to be rhetorically necessary for the argument, or grammatically awkward not to use it.

With that apology made, I will not apologize for my theological and ideological starting point for this essay. This starting point is with the Triune God who is incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. I presuppose the classical Christian faith of the historic Church, testified to in the Canonical Christian Scriptures, explicated in the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, and summarized in the Nicene Creed. I strongly believe that any journey toward a more "progressive", loving, healing, welcoming spirituality must travel with Jesus through a "traditional", scriptural, creedal, Christian worldview to show us the Way.

1. Scripture declares God's universal Fatherhood, and humanity's universal identity as God's children.

Scripture is overwhelmingly clear that God is the "Universal Father" of all Creation, and that all people are thus children of God, whether they realize it or not.

To start with, Ephesians 4:6 states that there is "one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." There is no clearer statement that connects God's Fatherhood with absolutely EVERY part of creation and EVERY person in it. This is because this one God has made all things [Genesis 1], and especially has made all humans in God's image [Genesis 1:26-31]. Thus, all humans bear the family resemblance of God because we are God's children.

Later in Ephesians, Paul teaches that the human concept of "Fatherhood" is rooted in the Universal Fatherhood of God:

Eph. 3.14-15 For this reason I bow my knees toward the Father [τὸν πατέρα], from whom every fatherhood [πατριὰ] in the heavens and upon earth is named.

If God was not Father of all creation in a universal sense, then it would be impossible for God to be the source of the ideal of fatherhood "in the heavens and upon earth". But, in fact, God is universally the Father of all, and all are children of God, and because of this all fatherhood derives its name, and its core concept, from God's Fatherhood.

In 1Corinthians 8, Paul makes it clear that even if we believe there are other "gods" or other "lords", we are simply in error. Because:

"Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth— as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." [1Co. 8.5-6]

In this, Paul makes it crystal clear that regardless of what illusions we labor under, the true God is still the Father of all creation, and as His children, we exist FOR him.

As far back as Deuteronomy, God's role as Father was explicitly connected with His creation of all that exists. Thus the writer of Deuteronomy 32.6-18 says:

"Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? ...Ask your father, and he will inform you… When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods, the LORD’S own portion was his people… They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him… You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth."

Paul takes up the same theme in his debate with Greek philosophers in Athens. In Acts 17.24-28 he says:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring [καὶ γένος ἐσμέν]'."

So, Paul explicitly connects God's creation of ALL nations and God's providential guidance of ALL peoples with our common identity as God's "offspring". The word "offspring" is γένος (genos), and this is explicitly a familial word, meaning "family, race, kind, offspring". It indicates descent from a common father. In fact, to make the Universal Fatherhood of God even clearer, the quote "We too are his offspring" comes not from a Jew, but from the Greek poet Epimenides. Apparently, the Fatherhood of God is so universal that even Pagan poets could get a dim glimmer of its truth!

This connection between universal creation and Universal Fatherhood is made the prophet Hosea as well:

Mal. 2.10 Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?

Jesus continues this prophetic tradition, because his favored name for God was not "God" nor "Lord" nor "King" nor "Master" nor "I AM" nor "Creator" nor even something more abstract, like "Ground of Being" or "Source" or "The One". For Jesus, the primary Name of God is "Father". For Jesus, before we can understand God as an abstract Reality, or a Ruler, or a Master, we must first understand God as a person in a concrete, loving, nurturing relationship with us. We must understand God as OUR Father.

For Jesus, even those who are "evil" can understand this Parental relationship, because it is fundamental to human experience, and basic to our relationship with God:

Luke 11:11 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? 12 Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

Note two things: First, Jesus assumes that even evil people can understand something about God by the analogue of human fatherhood. Secondly, to these same evil people, Jesus says that God is "the heavenly Father". Jesus simply could not do this if God was not, in fact, the Universal Father of all persons.

It would be an extremely lengthy study to look at every time Jesus spoke of God as Father. So, we shall look at one isolated sermon: The Sermon on the Mount. In this sermon [Matthew ch. 5-7], Jesus outlines his teaching on God's Universal Fatherhood of all people, good and evil, as well as God's special Fatherhood to believers.

In Matthew 5.45-48, we are told that "loving our enemies" is the key to "being perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect". The perfection of God is found above all in the love of those who we cannot stand, and who cannot stand us. This is because God is also the Father of our enemies, and loves them with the same love with which He loves us. We do this, in Jesus' words, "so that you may be [γένησθε] children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."

By loving others as the Father does, we live into, we fully become [γένησθε] who we really are: God's children. God's Universal Fatherhood is demonstrated in His loving treatment of all people, regardless of whether or not they accept their identity as children of the Father. After all, he "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous".

This doing of righteousness as a sign of both God's Universal Fatherhood, and our fully living into our identity as God's children, is paralleled in John's first letter:

1John 2.29-3.1 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who does right has been born of him. 1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

1John 4.7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

Doing right, and showing love, are both signs of living into our status as children of God. They are both signs that we have already been born of God. We do not suddenly become God's children by doing right or loving, as if we have to earn our status as God's children. Rather, they are signs that we are growing into our prior identity, an identity that all people share, even if they do not know it, or they reject it.

Back in the Sermon on the Mount, we find something interesting about the audience addressed in the sermon. Apparently, the audience included people who were not followers of Jesus' way. In Matthew 7.11, which parallels Luke 11:11-13, Jesus again says: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

Later, in Matthew 7:15-27, Jesus warns that some among his listeners may be false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, bad trees bearing bad fruit, hypocrites, and those who do not build upon the Rock of his teachings. And even for these people, Jesus connects his warnings with God's Fatherhood: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." [Matt. 7.21].

And although this text is not definitive in terms of God's Universal Fatherhood (after all, Jesus does say "my Father" here) it does set up a pattern: Jesus speaks freely about the Fatherhood of God around those who may not be following His way. The Fatherhood of God thus cannot be dependent on obedience to Christ. People are God's children regardless of whether they accept that status or not. What following the way of Christ does do, however, is bring people to the full awareness of their status as God's children.

This pattern of Jesus identifying God as Father in front of all types of people reaches its apex in his teaching on prayer. In Matthew 6.1, Jesus warns hypocrites and non-hypocrites to "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven." In Matthew 6.4 he teaches the same about our charitable giving. In Matthew 6.18 he teaches the same again about fasting. All of these practices are aimed toward "our Father in heaven" and are to be done "in secret".

But it is in Matthew 6:5-15, Jesus' teaching on prayer, that he reaches his pinnacle. In that section, we learn "The Lord's Prayer" which has been prayed by believers and non-believers from the time of Jesus to this day. This prayer does NOT begin with "My Father" or "Father of believers" or even "The Father".

The prayer begins "Our Father in Heaven".

If God was not the Universal Father, it simply would not make sense for Jesus to teach this prayer to a mixed crowd of disciples and hypocrites, of good and evil. Especially if he had any premonition that this prayer would be used by all kinds of people, both Christian AND non-Christian, across the centuries. If God were not Father of all people, it would be madness to teach all kinds of people to pray "Our Father".

In fact, Jesus even explicitly connects God's Fatherhood with both those who are forgiven, as well as those who are NOT forgiven, by the Father:

Matt. 6.14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Note that for both those forgiven and those unforgiven, the identity of God is the same. He is "your" Father.

In Matthew 6.25-32 Jesus connects God's universal Fatherhood with God's providence over all creation. In this teaching, our Father in Heaven provides for the birds of the air and the flowers of the field. The Father knows the needs of all, and provides for our needs out of his abundance.

Thus, the Sermon on the Mount epitomizes Jesus' teaching on the Universal Fatherhood of God for both believers and unbelievers. This, combined with the clear teaching of our other Scriptures above, makes it undeniable that God is in fact the Father of every single person.

This has always been realized by the Church, because the Universal Fatherhood of God is proclaimed in the first line of the Creed we use every Sunday in Church. In that Creed, the Nicene Creed, we state unequivocally that "We believe in one God THE Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of ALL that is seen and unseen."

2. Scripture declares God's special Fatherhood to Christian believers who become aware of their true identity through Christ.

I will start this section with the admission that it is my weakest point in the argument. It will not be seen as plausible unless one takes the texts on "Universal Fatherhood" as the controlling texts within which the texts on "Specific Fatherhood" should be interpreted. But, if one does take those texts as the interpretive key to the more specific texts about God being the Father of believers, then I think you find that both a reconcilable within the framework of God's Universal Fatherhood of all.

I believe the paradigmatic text in dealing with the issue of the Christian believer's special status as "child of God" comes from the beginning of the Gospel of John, which in some ways acts as the "thesis statement" for that book. It reads:

John 1.12 But to all who received [Christ], who believed in his name, he gave authority to become children of God [ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι], 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

This is a paradigmatic text, because it connects believer's spiritual re-birth, and their special identity as children of God, to a specific "mechanism": Namely receiving Christ [ἔλαβον αὐτόν] by putting trust in His Name [τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ]. Other passages that speak of re-birth and special "child of God" status do not as clearly connect these to a specific mechanism. Many are more vague references, such as:

John 3.3-5 "No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above… No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

Other texts from John relate "child of God" status, and spiritual re-birth, to putting our trust in Christ:

John 12.36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of light [ἵνα υἱοὶ φωτὸς γένησθε].

1John 5.1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God [ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται], and everyone who loves the parent loves the child.

But only John 1.12-13 comprehensively puts all of these issues in one text. And what is interesting for this discussion is that this text does not say that those who receive Christ and trust in his name BECOME children of God. It says that they are given "AUTHORITY TO BECOME children of God".

Authority [ἐξουσίαν] is a personally felt consciousness of the power of one's identity. For instance, a young child who has inherited a billion dollars may go for years not knowing the financial power that comes with her family identity. But, upon learning about her inheritance, she suddenly receives authority to fully live into that identity and use the power she has. It was not that she did not have the money or the power before. She did. She just didn't KNOW it. But knowing her identity and understanding it gives her the authority to use that power.

In the same way, all people are children of God, even if they do not it, nor know what that means, nor know the power that goes with that identity. It is only as they receive Christ, the firstborn Child of God, and trust in His Name, that they come to realize what it really means to have spiritual childhood status in God. Then they finally grasp the authority that goes along with their inheritance in Christ.

This new awareness of our true identity in Christ- an identity we always had, but were not truly aware of until receiving Christ- this new awareness is our spiritual re-birth. And this re-birth is analogous to physical birth. In physical birth, we were already alive in the womb and already are "children". But, it is only by exiting the womb and entering into life in the created world that we begin to realize that we are children. We come to know we are persons. We begin to understand we can act. We find out that we can choose. We start to differentiate ourselves from our biological parents.

This is the result of the "new awareness" from our first birth, our physical birth.

In the same way, our second birth, our spiritual birth, brings a new awareness of our identity as a spiritual child of God. In Christ, we see what it means to be a child of God in all its fullness. We realize that in Christ, we too are children of God. And that opens up a new awareness to the spiritual reality we were already living in before we were spiritually re-born.

This is why "no one can see the kingdom of God" without this spiritual re-birth [John 3:3-5]. This is why, by trusting in Christ's light, we can finally "become children of Light" as we see the Light we have always been living in, which "enlightens everyone" [John 1:9; 12:36]. Likewise, 1John 5:1 indicates that this spiritual re-birth comes through trusting that Jesus is the Christ.

In short, our spiritual re-birth in Christ is to finally realize our identity as children of God, and come to the full realization of all the potential that implies, as we grasp the authority to both understand and practice it. We are children of God through physical conception and birth. But it is through our "spiritual birth" that we come to realize this identity which we already possessed, but did not understand.

This also makes sense of Scriptures that speak of being "born of God" without explicit faith in Christ:

1John 2.29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who does right has been born of him.

1John 4.7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God…

Clearly, there are people who do what is right, who Love other, and who follow the Spirit's leading, without full knowledge that this behavior is empowered by the Spirit of Christ. God's Spirit works through God's children to bring them to a ever fuller knowledge of their true identity. These people are already born of God, already children of God, without fully knowing or understanding it.

Likewise, when we turn to Paul's language of adoption, we can begin to understand this as God's formal, explicit declaration of what was previously an informal, implicit identity:

Gal. 4.4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Eph 1.5 He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

In fact, there is ample reason to believe that adoption is not even a declaration that is made in this life, but one made at the final resurrection when we are finally clothed in our "true selves":

Romans 8:19, 23 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God… And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies [υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν].

Regardless of whether God's decree of adoption is an event in this life, or at the end of history, it is clear that it is a formal declaration of a status that was already in place. People are children of God before they experience the assurance of their formal "adoption" as children of God.

Even the analogy that this decree of adoption is based on- the analogue of human adoption- presumes a previous implicit identity as children. Parents do not suddenly decide that a child is THEIR child at the moment they sign the adoption paperwork, or the moment the judge gives the final decree of adoption. No, the parents decided long before that THIS child is THEIR child, and then they make this previous decision public and binding by going through the process of adoption.

With this understanding of "re-birth" and "adoption" as a new, explicit awareness of our previous, implicit identity as children of God, we can understand most of the "Specific Fatherhood" texts within the texts on the "Universal Fatherhood" of God.

There are very few texts that stubbornly resist this interpretation. However, for the record, I will list two:

Rom. 9.8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.

Gal. 3.26 In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

Both of these texts come from extended discussions by Paul about the relationship between Judaism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They come in the midst of him unravelling what the role of the Law is for the believer in Christ, and how to interpret membership in Israel in light of membership in Christ. So, these texts are not talking about people in general, but Jews and Christians in specific.

The first text from Romans is a very difficult text in one of the most difficult sections of the Bible [Romans ch. 9-11]. These texts have been argued and debated by so many, from so many different angles, that it is hard to come down dogmatically on what it is, or is not, saying.

However, it would seem reasonable that "children of the flesh" refers here to those made "children of Israel" by the circumcision of the flesh of their penises. Paul is NOT saying "children of the flesh" refer to those born naturally (i.e. all of humanity), but it refers to those physically incorporated into Israel (i.e Jews).

And thus, Paul is making the point that they cannot base their status as "children of God" on their Jewish rites and rituals. Their assurance as children of God- their felt authority as God's children- can come only from one place: The Promise of Jesus Christ.

In a similar vein, in Galatians 3 Paul has just made clear what the Jewish Law can and cannot do. He is crystal clear that no one can be justified, or put in a right relationship with God, by following the Law. As best, the Law is merely a "disciplinarian", not a Savior, and not a source of assurance.

And again, Galatians 3.26 is Paul's statement that our only clear assurance that we are children of God comes through faith in Christ.

Thus, the pattern stands: All persons are children of God by virtue of being created and endowed with the "family image" of God. However, due to sin, ignorance, and rebellion, we are not aware of our true identity as God's children. Only by putting our faith in our "Firstborn Brother" Jesus Christ do we come to a knowledge of what our true identity is. By receiving Him, and putting our trust in his Name, we are spiritually re-born into a new awareness of who we already were. This is our formal adoption, which makes explicit our previously implicit identity. The assurance of this identity cannot come by any other means, especially not by trying to be "justified" by performing the Jewish Law (or any other Law for that matter). Our assurance that we are indeed children of God is found only in Christ.

3. Scripture declares that anti-believers have given themselves over to "another father", which is a deception that God desires to redeem them from, not leave them in.

One perplexing problem raised by our texts on the Fatherhood of God are those texts in which people seem to have another "father". Among the most problematic of these texts is Jesus' rebuke of the Jewish religious authorities in John 8:39-47.

This passage begins with the Jewish leaders protesting that they are in right standing with God, as God's children, on the basis of their descent from Abraham:

John 8.39-41 They answered him, “Abraham is our father… We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.”

Jesus answers this with a biting indictment:

John 8.42-47 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here… You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires… Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.”

Now, we must take note that this exchange occurs as part of a very volatile debate with the Jewish leaders over the identity of Jesus, in which they were accusing Jesus of being demon possessed, evil, and a half-breed Samaritan. This is not something Jesus says out of the clear blue regarding sinners in general, or un-believers in general. No, this is said specifically about those blatantly denying him, to his face.

As such, we could probably assume this is dramatic overspeak on Jesus' part. Jesus is angry and is speaking out of anger, not out of rational, well measured teaching. These people are not beyond redemption or beyond God's Love, any more than the "prodigal son" in Luke 15 was beyond the love of his father. But they do believe in a deception which could permanently destroy their understanding of what it means to be God's child.

And it is this deception that Jesus is pointing out in dramatic, direct, damning terms.

What is the nature of this deception?

The deception that they are living in, and basing their identity upon, is that they somehow "merit" their status as God's children, or "earn" their relationship to God as Father. First of all, they think they have earned their right to be children of God based on their physical, genetic descent from Abraham: “Abraham is our father… We are not illegitimate children [who are considered to be worthless subhumans]; we have one father, God himself.” [John 8.39-41]

Secondly, they think that they maintain their status as children of God by adhering to the Law and "earning" God's Love and affection. Although this is not apparent in the immediate context of John 8, this is a rather standard critique from both Jesus and Paul throughout the New Testament. The fact that they saw their status as based on physical merit and effort is not only an affront to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but even to the Mosaic Law which they claimed to adhere to.

For instance, God makes it clear that the Israelite's status as "chosen" children of God is based purely on his Love, mercy, and grace, and not upon anything they can do to "earn" such status:

Deut. 7.7 It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you—for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

And by using "Abraham" as the source of their value, they are refuting their own argument. For Abraham was chosen by God as a gift of sheer grace, and not because he was worthwhile, as Paul repeatedly points out in his letters (such as Romans ch. 4-5 and Galatians ch. 2-4). Indeed, "children of Abraham" are created as a sheer act of grace, and can be created anywhere, out of anyone, or anything:

Matt. 3.9 [Jesus said] Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

So, by succumbing to the theory that the Fatherhood of God can somehow be earned, the Jewish leaders are falling for one of the oldest and most perennial temptations of Satan: "Do this ___, and you will become like God!" [cf. Genesis 3]

The idea of attaining our status, our worth, our identity, our validity through our own effort and through our lineage, and then using this status to oppress, demean, and abuse others is an ancient lie from the pit of hell. When people buy into this lie, they are trading in their birthright as God's children (by grace) to be Satan's children (by works). They are basing their status, not on the undeserved unconditional Love of God, but on "proving" they are worthy and "accusing" others as unworthy (for that is what the Hebrew "satan" and the Greek "diabolos/devil" means: The accuser).

The process of this denial of status as God's children by grace, and acceptance of status as children of the devil by works, is described by Paul in Ephesians 2.1-10:

1 You were dead through the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient… We were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ… 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

This describes the universal state of humanity under slavery to Satan, and then under the liberation of grace through Jesus Christ. This is the model within which we can understand Jesus' words when he calls the religious leaders "children of the devil". These leaders, like all of humanity, are "dead through the trespasses and sins" as we follow the devil. This makes them, and all of us, "children of wrath" insofar as we deny our true identity as "children of God". But, even if we forget our identity in God, God has not. For, "out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses" God has come to rescue us in Christ as a sheer act of his grace.

So, we understand Jesus' words, and Paul's paradigm, NOT as a denial of humanity's basic status as "children of God", BUT as a description of how we deny this identity and live under the illusion that this identity is either lost (God rejects us) or is earned (God only loves us based on our heritage or our works). This illusion is shattered in Christ, as we come to realize that we always have been loved as God's children, and always will be loved as God's children, on the basis of grace alone.

4. God's Universal Fatherhood makes better sense of the Divine motive for salvation.

This paradigm of salvation is given to us in story form through Jesus' parable of "The Prodigal Son" in Luke 15.11-32. In that story, as most of us know, the younger son literally "cashes in" his identity, and sells his authority as a child in the family, in order to go and do whatever he desires. So, the premise of the story is that the "prodigal son" begins, from birth, with the identity and status as "son". He then denies his identity, and sells his status, for something far lower than that status. This denial is so dramatic that, when he finally "comes to himself" and goes BACK to the Father he had denied, the Father says:

"Let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!" [Luke 15.24-25]

Note first that this is precisely the language of spiritual re-birth given by Jesus, John, and Paul. His state of denying who he really is, is called "death" and being "lost". His repentance, acceptance, and new awareness of his identity as a "child of the father" is called becoming "alive" and being "found". The Prodigal Son is a story of spiritual re-birth into his implicit identity as a child. It is the father's declaration of "adoption" as his son is once again declared to be "this son of MINE".

The logic of this story- indeed the whole logic of the economy of salvation- does not work unless a person is ALREADY a child of God BEFORE they are saved, born again, and adopted.

This story would simply make no sense if it was about some homeless drifter who became tired of his life of sin and instability, and looked up the richest local landlord, and appeared on the doorstep saying "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son" [cf. Luke 15.21]. At that point the landlord would simply say "You are damn right you are not my son!", slam the door, and call the police.

It requires the Prodigal Son to ALREADY be a child of the father, in order for the father to be yearning for reconciliation, to be waiting for him to come home, and then to "see him while he was still far off, and be filled with compassion, and run to him and put his arms around him" [cf. Luke 15.20].

Thus, in order to make any sense out of God's motive for saving humanity (or even a portion of humanity) through Jesus Christ, we must understand that God was ALREADY the Father of his children before choosing to reach out to them and save them. This is most concisely summed up in John's most famous passage:

John 3.16-17 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

Clear indications of God's prior love for the world, as his children, and his desire to save them from their sins and lies, comes in a number of Scriptures, notably: Ps 145:9-17; Mt 5:45; Ac 14:17; 17:25; Wis 11:21-12:2; Rom 11:32; Eze 33:11; 1Ti 2:1-6; 2Pe 3:9; Mark 1:15; 2Sa 14:14; and 1Ti 4:10.

This prior Love for all persons can only be fully described by the fact that, in accordance with Jesus' story of the Prodigal Son, God is ALREADY a Father to all persons, and loves them as such, and on this basis decides to save them.

This just makes more sense than the alternative. It does not make sense that God would create people for the purpose of hating them. In fact, even in God's disciplinary punishment, it only makes sense that God punishes IF God is their Father punishing them for the purpose of bringing them to healing and salvation.

Scripture tells us God uses punishment to accomplish His Purpose of Love in several ways. It may be for restitution, to restore imbalance [A]. Punishment may be a deterrent to warn others to avoid evil [B]. Punishment may be done to protect God's people, and quarantine evil from harming the community [C]. But divine punishment is NEVER done for revenge or "retribution" (i.e. God never gains pleasure from torturing the wicked or seeing them suffer). Divine punishment is ALWAYS done for redemption: To save those involved through a process of discipline, learning, and healing [D]. Even "vessels of destruction" handed over to "the destruction of the flesh" are given over in order to ultimately be saved [E].
[A] Lev 24:17-21
[B] Deu 19:19-21; Pro 21:11
[C] Deu 17:2-7; Psa 37:28-29; Mat. 13:47-50; 25:31-46; Rev 21:27
[D] Heb 12; Eze 18:32; Lam 3:33; Lev 19:18; Rom 11.32; 12.17-21; Mat 5-6; Luke 15:20-32; Psa 32:3-6; 2Co 7:10; Rev 2:22;
[E] 1Co 3:10-15; 5:5; 11.32; Jude 1.22-23; Rom 11:32; Hos 5:14-6:2; Jer 18:1-11; 30:24; 1Pe 4:5-6; Rom 9:21-23, 2Ti 2:20-21; 1Ti 1:15;

This is summed up well by the writer of the Deuterocanonical book "Wisdom":

"For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living. For your immortal spirit is in all things. Therefore you correct little by little those who trespass, and you remind and warn them of the things through which they sin, so that they may be freed from wickedness and put their trust in you, O Lord." [From Wisdom 11.21-12.2]

This is because, according to John, God's personal nature is Love [1John 4.8-16]. God loves God's entire creation in general, and declares it to be good, over and over and over [cf. Genesis 1]. Specifically, God loves those persons who are made in God's image and share in God's "family likeness" [cf. Genesis 1.26-31]. This familial love for persons who bear God's image is called "fatherhood". That is what love looks like when it is love shared between a Creator and a creation, that is a person, just like their Creator. There simply is no other "relational analogue" besides parenthood that comes anywhere near describing this Love that the God of Love has for his beloved children: God is a Loving Father to all those who bear God's image.

5. Just as God's special Fatherhood of Jesus does not deny, but enhances God's Fatherhood of believers, so also God's special Fatherhood of believers does not deny, but enhances God's Fatherhood of humanity.

Some may protest that declaring ALL people "children of God" detracts from the special identity of believers in Christ as "children of God". If we say God is Father of ALL people, then what difference does it make that God is especially the Father of those who have received Christ as Lord and Savior?

It makes all the difference in the world! For it is only those in Christ who can truly understand the rights and responsibilities that come with being a "child of God". Only those in Christ are given the full revelation that they are indeed children of God, beloved by the Father before all time, out of the sheer grace and abundance of God's Love, and not based on anything they can do (or not do) to earn this Love.

Think of the tragedy of being the child of a billionaire, but living your entire life without knowing it, without having access to the fortune that WAS ALREADY yours. If this is a tragedy, how much greater a tragedy for those who are already children of God, but who are separate from Christ, unable to fully know, grasp, or understand who their true identity is.

God sent Jesus to rectify and reconcile this tragedy. Now he sends us, those who are IN Christ, to do the same. We are sent, like Jesus, to bring people from death to life by making them aware of who they really, already are as children of God. We do this, by bringing them to Christ, our firstborn Brother in God's family. It is only by seeing Jesus, by knowing Him, by being IN Him, that we can fully live into what it means to relate to God as "Our Father".

Furthermore, it is bogus, poorly constructed logic to argue: "If all persons are children of God, it diminishes the believers' identity as children of God: Thus we must call no one children of God but believers".

Imagine a similar argument: "If we say that believers are children of God, then we diminish Jesus' identity as the firstborn, unique Child of God [τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ. cf. John 1.14; 1.18; 3.16; 3.18; 1John 4.9]: Thus we must call no one a child of God but Jesus Christ."

This logic does not work, because clearly our identity as God's children only enhances and brings glory to Jesus' identity as the firstborn, unique Child of God. So says Paul:

Rom. 8.29 "For those whom [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family."

Jesus' identity as the Central Child of God, who alone is able to bring others to know and understand their identity as children of God, brings glory to the Father. In the same way, we who know we are children of God reaching out to other children of God who do not yet know they are children of God also brings glory to both God our Father, and to Jesus our Firstborn Brother.

It is a chain of Love that extends out to the Lost, Last, and Least among God's children:

God the Father --> Jesus the Firstborn Child --> Knowing, re-born Children --> Ignorant, un-born Children

Jesus glorifies the Father by becoming Savior of the world. We glorify Jesus by bringing those who do not know Him to realize who they are through Him.

6. A more comprehensive hermeneutic is preferable to a less comprehensive hermeneutic.

An underlying concern throughout this entire essay has been to find a hermeneutic- an interpretive schema- which can make the most sense out of the most evidence. It is common sense that if you have 100 facts (pieces of evidence), and you are trying to explain all of those facts, the best explanation is the one which takes into account the most facts without denying or distorting any of them.

Thus, an explanation which accounts for 90 facts is better than one that accounts for 60 facts, which is better than one that accounts for 30 facts. But an explanation that takes into account all 100 facts is better than all of them. This is particularly where the idea of the Universal Fatherhood of God is far superior to the idea of a Fatherhood which is only limited to believers.

Here is a list of facts that we must deal with thus far:

[A] God is clearly taught as Father of all people [cf. Eph 4:6; 3.14-15; 1Co 8.5-6; Deu 32.6-18; Acts 17.24-28; Mal 2.10; Luke 11:11-13; Mat 5.45-48; 1Jo 2.29; 4.7; Mat 7:15-27; 6.1-18; 6.25-32]

[B] God has a special, explicit relationship with believers, because they have been "re-born" through Christ to fully understand their identity as children of The Father [cf. John 1.12-13; 3.3-5; 12.36; 1John 5.1; 2.29; 4.7; Rom 8:14-30; 9:8; Gal 3:26; 4.4-6; Eph 1.1-18]

[C] Scripture declares that anti-believers have given themselves over to "another father", which is a deception that God desires to redeem them from, not leave them in [cf. John 8:39-47; Deu 7.7-8; Mat 3.9; Eph 2.1-10]

[D] Both God's Creation and Redemption of humans is tied to God's prior Love for them as their Father [cf. Luke 15.11-32; John 3.16-17; Ps 145:9-17; Mt 5:45; Ac 14:17; 17:25; Wis 11:21-12:2; Rom 11:32; Eze 33:11; 1Ti 2:1-6; 2Pe 3:9; Mark 1:15; 2Sa 14:14; 1Ti 4:10]

[E] Even God's discipline and punishment is linked to His identity as a Father [cf. Dt 8:5; Pro 3:11-12; Heb 12:5-6] who desires to heal and save all His children [Eze 18:32; 33.11; Lam 3:33; Lev 19:18; Rom 11.32; 12.17-21; Luke 15:20-32; Psa 32:3-6; 2Co 7:10; 2Pe 3.9; 1Ti 2.1-5]

The idea of Limited Fatherhood could possibly explain facts B and C above. But even at that, it is next to impossible to understand WHY God would want to save and create children for himself in the first place if God did not already Love them as a Father. Limited Fatherhood has real problems making sense of texts which present the "logic of salvation", such as Ephesians 2.1-10 and the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.11-32.

In fact, the idea of Limited Fatherhood has to simply ignore, deny, or distort most of the evidence contained in fact A and D. Perhaps the evidence contained in fact E could be maintained under the idea of Limited Fatherhood, but that would raise the nasty question of why God would choose to discipline and punish people he did not Love and did not want to save. Does he just enjoy their suffering?

To make a long story short, Limited Fatherhood simply cannot make sense of whole swaths of evidence found in Scripture. Limited Fatherhood seems to be merely a mechanism for "insiders" to achieve a legalistic sense of superiority to "outsiders" who are "not God's children" like "we" are. To put it bluntly, to believe in merely the Limited Fatherhood of God is to come way too close to the error that the Jewish leaders fell into when Jesus castigated them as "children of the devil" [cf. John 8:39-47].

On the other hand, as I have shown, the Universal Fatherhood of God makes more sense out of the Limited Fatherhood evidence than even the idea of Limited Fatherhood does! The Universal Fatherhood idea can explain all the facts listed above, even the texts that can be used to appeal to Limited Fatherhood.

The Universal Love of God for all naturally includes the Specific Love of God for believers. But, if we begin with the Specific Love of God for believers, and allow the horizon of our understanding to be confined to this alone, we simply cannot explain or grasp the Universal Love of God.

And, on top of all of this, there is one piece of evidence we have not yet examined which Universal Fatherhood makes far better sense out of.

7. Denying God's Universal Fatherhood has dire moral implications, and makes impossible to follow the command to "love our neighbor as ourselves".

If Jesus is God Incarnate, and the Central Person in Scripture, it makes sense that we should pay attention to what He says is the "Main Thing" in Scripture. We should emphasize and live into what He emphasizes, and de-emphasize what he de-emphasizes. Over and over, we find that the preeminent concern of Jesus and his Disciples is the universal Love of all our neighbors, including and especially Love for our enemies and for outsiders.

Such Love is said to be the perfection of God [Mat 5.38-48], the Greatest Commandments [Mat 22.36-40], the motive of God's mission [John 3.16-17], the mark that we are truly known as Jesus' disciples [John 13.34-35] the fulfillment of His example [John 15.12], the most excellent way [1Corinthians 13], our method in every single action [1Corinthians 16.14], the fulfillment of the Law [Romans 13.8-10], the primary fruit of the Spirit [Galatians 5.22-23] and the apex of virtue [2Peter 1.5-7].

I could go on, but a helpful list of all the ways that practicing Divine Love for our neighbor is considered central to living as children of God can be found here:

Matthew 5:38-48; 7:12; 22:36-40;
Mark 12:28-34;
Luke 6:27-38; 10:25-37;
John 3:16-18; 13:34-35; 15:12;
Acts 2:43-47; 4:32-35; 11:1-18;
1Corinthians 8:1; 12:31-13:13; 16:14; 16:24;
2Corinthians 13:11-13;
Romans 8:33-39; 12:9-13; 13:8-10;
Galatians 2:20; 5:6; 5:13-26;
Ephesians 3:14-4:2; 4:15-16; 5:2; 5:25; 5:28; 6:23-24;
Philippians 1:9; 2:1-11;
Colossians 3:12-15;
1Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9-10;
2Thessalonians 1:3; 3:5;
1Timothy 1:5; 1:12-14; 2:3-6; 4:12; 6:11;
2Timothy 1.7; 1:13;
Titus 2:2; 3:4-7;
Philemon 1:5, 1:9;
Hebrews 10.24; 13.1;
James 2:8;
1Peter 1:20-23; 3:8-9; 4:8;
2Peter 1:5-7; 3:9;
1John 2.10; 3.1; 3.10-18; 3.23; 4.7-21; 5.1-5;

And this is just the Love passages. This does not include all of the many passages in which kind, compassionate, loving action is prescribed in how we treat those OUTSIDE the Christian fold, such as:

Matt. 5.14 "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

Luke 6.27 "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."

1Pet. 2.12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge.

Heb. 13.2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.

Rom. 12.13 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.

I could go on, but it is patently obvious. God's utmost desire is for us to Love others, especially and specifically those who are NOT ONE OF US. And here is the crux of it: IF God does not actually Love everyone, THEN God is a hypocrite for wanting us to Love others, especially our enemies. Furthermore, if God does not love those "outside" then it eliminates all our motive to Love them. It is useless to love them. We are in fact Loving a "lost cause".

And actually, God cannot be said to Love others in the fullest sense of the word- the sense of the word that God means when he tells us to Love our enemies sacrificially- if God does not Love THEM like He Loves US. And if God is NOT a Father to THEM as God is a Father to US, then God does not Love them the same say, nor does God Love them in a sacrificial way.

The only way God can truly be said to Love people made in God's image fully, perfectly, and sacrificially is if God is their Father. God MUST be their Father for ANY of these Love commands to make sense. The idea of a merely limited Fatherhood of God does severe damage to our motive and example to "love our neighbor as ourselves".

Furthermore, it would make it a logical impossibility to Love our neighbor as ourselves if in fact our neighbor was NOT a child of God. Because, we can only love ourselves on the basis of our identity as a child of God. We can only Love ourselves because God first Loved us as our Father.

If they were not in fact children of God, it would make our entire Love for them false, because we would be loving them on the basis of ourselves, when they did not have the same status or identity as ourselves. Indeed, the whole puzzle of "Who can we Love as a child of God like ourselves?" would be become a crippling handicap in all of our relationships!

We would first have to create criteria to judge the eternal salvation of others to determine if they were a child of God like us, before we could Love them "as ourselves". This judgment of people's souls, and the implied condemnation of many as "damned outsiders", puts us in the place of God and goes directly against another of Jesus' central teachings:

Matt. 7.1 “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye." [see also Luk 6:37-42; Rom 2:1-3; 14:1-13; Col 2:16; Jas 2:1-4; 4:11-12]

Yet, the idea of a merely limited Fatherhood of God logically drives us directly to this point of judging others as "inside" or "outside", before we are able to Love those "inside" as ourselves. This is, in a word, damning to the soul.

When the idea of "Limited Fatherhood" is taught, with the corollary that not all are children of God, this is exactly what it leads people to. Worse than that, the Limited Fatherhood of God is used as an excuse to exclude, oppress, demonize, and abuse others who are considered outsiders. This is because "child of God" easily becomes both "us" and "fully human", while "not a child of God" easily becomes both "them" and "sub-human".

Furthermore, if "they" are sub-human, and are not loved by God as children, then "we" have no reason to Love them either. "They" become an obstacle to be removed, or a tool to be used, to bring "us" into the "good life".

This logic is not often rigorously or explicitly followed by those who adhere to the Limited Fatherhood of God. But the implications are easily connected, and can be observed in racism and prejudice and injustices and murders and wars and genocides throughout history.

I could name concrete example after concrete example of how Limited Fatherhood of God is used as a justification to oppress and exclude those who are "not God's children". But I will only use one such example.

I had a recent discussion about the death penalty with a person who I know to be a well-intentioned, sincere Christian who does a great deal of volunteer work, and who is a good parent. She self identifies herself as "Biblical", "Evangelical" and "Conservative". She is also a supporter of the death penalty, and was advocating the execution of a suspected terrorist if that terrorist was convicted of trying to bomb American civilians.

For the record, I am against the death penalty. I support the use of necessary force by the police or military to stop an oppressor who is actively abusing others. I understand how this could be a "lesser evil" than allowing oppressors to continue to violate their victims, and as such is necessary for the maintenance of a "just" society. But I cannot support taking a defenseless prisoner, who is no longer a threat, and who is a child of God, and willfully murdering them in a planned, pre-meditated fashion. The murder of a murderer does not bring about justice, in the same way that adding negative numbers together will never result in a positive number.

Anyway, as we discussed the matter, I dismantled her arguments for the death penalty one by one, until she stopped trying to defend her position on the basis of Scripture. But, as a parting shot, she said this:

"I believe your assumption that this guy is a “child of God” is incorrect. Based on his actions, and based on his allegiance to Pakistan, I think its safe to say that his god is Allah, and not the “I am”, and [because] of that would not then, have the Holy Spirit living in him… [So] how then, how could he be a child of God. Was Hitler a child of God? No. I think we would both agree he did not have the Spirit either! I believe there are just plain evil people in this world [because] of satan’s influence and therefore Exodus 21* is necessary."

*Exodus 21 is a passage that assigns the death penalty to a number of offenses under Hebrew Law, including: Cursing one’s parents Exo 21:15-17; Kidnapping Exo 21:16 and Murder Exo 21:12.

Here is what is interesting about her ultimate rationale: We can kill him BECAUSE he is not "God's child", a foreigner, and not "one of us". She seemed to be convinced that murdering another child of God by using the death penalty was out of bounds (because presumably that person was forgiven, re-born, and in some way redeemable). But, once someone was judged and condemned as "not a child of God", all such barriers were removed. We can murder them with impunity because their life does not matter in God's sight.

And this is coming from a fairly thoughtful, very committed Christian who quotes Scripture constantly. Imagine if someone who was not as sincere, or not as committed to Jesus, or not as Biblical got a hold of this idea. They might perhaps get the idea that God's chosen children were some type of easily identifiable Master Race, who were the "real humans", while ethnic and religious others were "sub-human". They might begin a final solution, and load all of the sub-humans in death camps and start killing them. Because, after all, their lives do not matter to God.

Sound familiar?

Any Christian Teacher or Pastor who teaches a merely Limited Fatherhood of God is, in effect, teaching other Christians a method of distancing themselves from the humanity of "others", and a mechanism to absolve themselves of the responsibility to "love their neighbor as themselves". Granted, most people who believe this are not going to follow this "slippery slope" to its logical end. But they will, in small ways, use the Limited Fatherhood of God to ignore or deny the full humanity of "others" in subtle ways.

Over time, across a culture, this will justify, or even create, social, political, and economic inequalities. It is inevitable. It will, in subtle ways and overt ways, begin to harm God's children, who the Father loves. It will become a stumbling block to the full realization of God's Love. And Jesus speaks of those who teach or lead others into stumbling blocks:

Matthew 18.6 If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

However, if a Christian Teacher or Pastor teaches the Universal Fatherhood of God, and how this Universal Fatherhood leads us into mission to help every single person discover their identity as God's child through Christ, then there is NEVER a justification for treating other people as "sub-human". When persons- any persons from any where- are seen through the eyes of the Universal Fatherhood of God, their life is ALWAYS sacred, and they are ALL worthy of being treated with dignity.

Conclusion: Teach and Live as if every single person is a Child of God

In the end, denying the Universal Fatherhood of God has severe spiritual implications as well.

If Universal Fatherhood is true, and absolutely all people are children of God, then denying their full dignity as God's children in our teaching and practice will result in the wrath and discipline of God upon us. God will be angry at us in the same way that our earthly Father would be angry at us for mis-treating and denying of our siblings. If we teach that God is not Father of all, or we mistreat others because they are not "children of God", when in fact this is untrue, it will most certainly result in harsh discipline from our Father [cf. Dt 8:5; Pro 3:11-12; Heb 12:5-10].

If Universal Fatherhood is false, and God is ONLY Father of those who are "in Christ", it still invites God's wrath to teach and live like as if Limited Fatherhood is true. Jesus' teachings and parables make it clear that we cannot discern who is truly in Christ and who is not. Through parables of wheat and weeds, sheep and goats, wise and foolish builders, Jews and Samaritans, and many others, we find that we cannot be sure at all of who are God's "elect" and who are not.

No matter what group we choose to exclude as "not God's children", whether Protestants or Catholics, Jews or Muslims, Men or Women, Gays or Lesbians, Liberals or Conservatives, Atheists or Fundamentalists, or whatever else, there are bound to be exceptions to "the rule". God is at work in all of these groups, bringing people to be "in Christ". And to abuse, oppress, persecute, ignore, or demean ANYONE in certain groups is to deny God is at work to save at least some as his elect children in these groups. Thus, teaching and living as if God is not at work among certain groups is to invite the abuse and denial of God's elect children. The only way to treat all of God's elect children with the dignity they deserve is to teach and live AS IF all people deserve the dignity of God's children. To do any less is to invite God's wrath and discipline upon us for denying and abusing His elect children.

Furthermore, even if the "worst case" scenario is true, and we treat a person (or group of people) as if they are God's children, when in fact they are not, only good can result from it. Good will result for them, because such a practice would treat them with dignity, encourage them to live healthy lives, and exhort them to Love Christ and Love others. This could only make their lives better, not worse. Additionally, treating them as Christ would, with unconditional, undeserved, sacrificial Love, can only benefit us as well. For it is in the practice of such Love that we become more Christlike. So, rejecting them as an "out group" would have none of these benefits, either for them or for us.

In fact, it seems that the only motive to exclude others as "not God's children" boils down to human selfishness. It is a fundamental way to legitimate our use of other people for selfish ends, whether that is to gain power, or property, or praise, or pleasure, or prestige from using them. The denial of the Universal Fatherhood of God is a primary "distancing mechanism" to excuse oneself from the full responsibility to love our neighbor as ourself. Thus, treating anyone as if they are not a child of God not only does damage to them, but also does damage to our own soul as well. Our practice of un-love and un-Christlikeness toward them can only further infect us with the disease of sin. There simply is no benefit, but there are plenty of detriments, to adhering to the idea that God is not Father of all.

Thus, whether the Universal Fatherhood of God is completely accurate or not, it is best to live and teach as if it is. If we follow this moral "Pascal's Wager", it can only result in a better world, with a superior basis on which to "love our neighbor as ourselves". In fact, teaching and practicing the Universal Fatherhood of God, and universal dignity of all people as God's children, will result in a better world even if God did not exist. Furthermore, such teaching and practice will surely result in less damage to our relationship with God, and less discipline from God, regardless of whether or not it is fully accurate.

So, we find an overwhelmingly strong argument that God is in fact Universal Father. This, combined with the clear benefits, and removal of deficits, provided by this teaching, leads to one conclusion: We should teach and live as if God is Father of all people, and all persons are children of God.

Always Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing

2010-05-02T14:39:00.001-05:00

A Sermon For Year C, Easter 5
Copyright © 2010 Nathan L. Bostian
Based on John 13:31-35, Acts 11:1-18 and Rev. 21:1-6

The duty of every good pastor is to clearly and concisely teach and preach what God desires for our lives: To teach it clearly, in such a way that anyone can understand; To preach it concisely, in such a way that anyone can remember.

And although I feel I have been very clear about what I have taught you these last four years at Canterbury, I fear I have not been very concise. Our two hour Bible studies, while deep and intense and even hilarious, desperately resist being put into a "nutshell".

And now we are coming to the end of one Journey of Ministry, and we are beginning another. But before I leave, I want to give you the nutshell. The big picture. The cliff notes of what this has all been about.

My most formative mentor, teacher, and coach from my childhood had two phrases that I will always remember, that put everything in a nutshell.

The first was "Keep yer feet movin'! Drive drive drive!" And while that is not very applicable to this sermon, his voice ringing in my ears has pushed me through more tough times than I care to remember.

His second phrase, which is more important, and more applicable here, was this: "Always keep the Main Thing the Main Thing." Don't loose the big picture. Keep your eyes focused on the goal. In the midst of the game of life, always remember WHY you play the game in the first place.

"Always keep the Main Thing the Main Thing".

So, what is the Main Thing that has motivated my ministry here? What is the Main Thing I want you to take home from my teaching and preaching and counseling? What is the Main Thing in our Bible, in our Theology, and in our Worship?

Let me start by saying what the Main Thing is NOT. When I think of what the Main Thing is NOT, I am always drawn back to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where He says:

"The gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction… [But] the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life..."

I envision a narrow path laid out before me, like a tightrope, with two wide paths on either side that fall off into destruction: One on the Left and one on the Right.

The cold, dark Chasm on the Left is the "religion" of apathetic inclusion. Now, this is an odd sort of religion, because not everyone in this religion even believes in God. But that doesn't matter.

In fact, on the Left nothing matters. Do your own thing. Think what you want to think. Do what you want to do. Just keep it to yourself. I won't bother you if you won't bother me.

On the Left, we demand absolute toleration, because there is no real love or care for each other. Leave us alone and let us do our own thing. There is no Creed or Code except the absolute rejection of any Creed or Code.

That is precisely because on the Left is the Hell of total indifference towards one's neighbor.

The fiery, painful Pit on the Right is the "religion" of fearful exclusion. It is the religion of drawing up endless lists of expectations: Ideological expectations, Moral expectations, Spiritual expectations, Cultural expectations, and even expectations of what types of expectations we should have.

Then we use our endless lists of expectations to rigorously determine who is IN and who is OUT, who is GOOD and who is BAD, who is BLESSED and who is DAMNED: All so we can clearly define US, and control THEM, and keep everyone in their nice, neat boxes.

This is precisely because on the Right is the Hell of everyone trying to control everyone else.

And the Main Thing is to walk with Jesus on the Narrow Path over, through, and between these broad roads to oblivion. And if that sounds impossible to walk a tightrope between desolation on the Left, and destruction on the Right: You are correct.

It is impossible.

And that is why we need Jesus to hold our hand, and His Spirit to be our guide, as we travel this Journey with Him. We can't do it without Jesus.

But a Journey implies a Goal. A Destination. A Main Thing we are journeying toward. So, what is the Main Thing?

Now, lots of people have lots of answers about what the Main Thing in Christianity is. Ask 10 Biblical scholars what the Main Idea of Scripture is, you will get 100 different answers.

But, as for me, I am going to follow my coach's advice and pay attention to what Jesus says is the Main Thing.

I say this because Jesus DOMINATES Christian Scripture as THE Main Thing.

Jesus or Christ is mentioned 1,446 times in the New Testament. That's once every six verses, ten times more than any other human, and even more times than the word "God" is mentioned.

In fact, Jesus is named as God, as Lord, and by Saint Thomas as "My Lord and my God". Jesus embodies the fullness of God in Colossians, contains the Reality of God in Philippians, and incarnates God's Word in John.

Jesus is variously called The Way, The Truth, and The Life; Our Savior, our Victor, our Resurrection, our Peace, and our Hope. He is the only Remedy for our Sin, and in Him all things in Heaven and on Earth will be reconciled to God, by the power of His Death and Resurrection.

So, in Jesus, the "Main Thing" has entered into History in bodily form. And since He is God, I think we should pay attention to what He says is HIS Main Thing. We need to emphasize what He emphasizes, and de-emphasize what He de-emphasizes.

So, what is it exactly that he emphasizes?

Jesus starts by making it clear in Matthew chapter 5 that there are "lesser commandments", and in chapter 22 that there are "greater commandments". And in chapter 23 Jesus scolds the Religious leaders for "neglecting the weightier matters of the law" and instead focusing on religious trivia.

Across the New Testament, both Jesus and his Apostles make it painfully clear that certain issues are central to following Him, to becoming LIKE Him, and other issues are peripheral, and even trivial.

So, what is Central? What is the Key? Is it justification by faith? Is it social justice and inclusion? Is it making it to heaven and avoiding hell when we die?

Is it correct doctrine: Knowing all the right answers? Is it having the proper philosophical foundation to support our massive theological systems?

No, as significant as many of these things are, they are not the Main Thing. They may be important, even eternally important, but ONLY in the service of the Main Thing.

Apart from the Main Thing, they become idols and distractions that make us veer to the Left, or swerve to the Right.

But countless romance novels, myriads of silly songs, and endless cheesy movies have spayed and neutered the Main Thing. They have taken something Strong and Vibrant and Real, and turned it into a selfish, sappy, saccharine sweet sentiment.

So when I finally name the Main Thing, I want you flush all your pop-culture, semi-romantic, weak-willed notions down the drain. I want you to prepare for the Main Thing as embodied in Jesus, as lived by His Apostles, and as taught in the Scriptures.

The Main Thing is Love. God's Love. The Love strong enough to speak Creation into existence. The Love powerful enough to bring Jesus back from the dead. The Love mighty enough to heal all of Creation.

The first time we encounter the Centrality of Love is in Matthew chapter 5. There Jesus tells us what it means to be "perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect".

It is the one and only time Jesus ever teaches HOW to become as perfect as God.

What is "The Secret"? What will makes us perfect like our Father? It is this: "LOVE your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". Perfection IS to LOVE those you can't stand.

Later, in Matthew chapter 22, Jesus is asked what the Greatest Commandment of the Law is. His reply was:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ON these two commandments HANG ALL the law and the prophets."

And before we skip past it, ponder its implications. The Greek word that is used here literally means that all of the rest of the Scriptures hang, like a mountain climber hanging from her fingertips, on Divine Love.

Without Love, the whole purpose and plot of Scripture simply falls apart. As Saint Augustine said: "If it seems to you that you have understood the divine scriptures, or any part of them, in such a way that by this understanding you do not build up this twin love of God and neighbor, then you have not understood."

Again, in Mark chapter 12, Jesus re-iterates that this twin Love of God and neighbor is God's FOREMOST concern for us. In Luke chapter 10, Jesus does the same thing again, but this time he ups the ante.

In that chapter he gives a story to illustrate what that Love looks like lived out. And in his story, it was not the ultra-righteous priest, or the ultra-orthodox theologian, who were examples of Divine Love. It was the heretical, impure, half-breed Samaritan who exemplified Love by actually helping someone in need.

As we turn to the Gospel of John, we find that Love is the whole motivation why Jesus came to save us. In chapter 3 we read: "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

And then we turn to our Gospel reading today from John chapter 13. There we find that THE critical mark of discipleship is this: "Everyone will know that you are my disciples, IF you LOVE one another."

In the eyes of a hurting world, our status as followers of Jesus is not determined by our political party, our personal piety, or our defined dogmas. It is determined by whether we actually Love people like Jesus did:

"Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another."

In John chapter 21, when the Risen Lord comes to restore Peter, what was his primary concern? What did He ask Peter, not once, not twice, but three times?

Did he say: Peter, are you convinced now? Peter, do you finally believe? Peter, are you sorry for denying me?

No. He asked "Peter, do you Love me?"

And even in this passage, Peter's Love for Jesus is connected with Love for other people. Because as soon as Peter affirms His Love for Jesus, Jesus challenges him to make this Love concrete by feeding Jesus' flock of followers.

Then, as we flip the page to the book of Acts, we see what this Love looks like embodied in community. In the 2nd and 4th chapters, we see pictures of the early Christian community spending time with each other, sharing everything in common, and serving each other, so that there was not a needy person among the whole lot of them.

In our passage today from Acts chapter 11, we get another glimpse of the all-encompassing Love of God for all people, and all of creation. Again, Peter is confronted by the Risen Lord: This time in a vision. In that vision, God makes it clear that no one is unclean. Are are useful. All are loved. All are included.

As we turn to the book of Romans, the most systematic book of theology and ethics in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul makes it crystal clear that Love is the Source, Center, and Goal of his teaching.

In Romans chapter 8, we are told that nothing in all of creation- not life nor death, nether angels nor demons, nothing present nor yet to come- NOTHING can separate us from the Love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In Romans chapter 13, we are told that all of the commandments are summed up by the command to Love our neighbor as ourselves. This is because "Love is THE fulfillment of the Law".

This insight is epitomized by Paul in his Love song in First Corinthians chapter 13. He introduces his song by stating that Love is "the most excellent way".

Then Paul goes on to sing:

"Love is patient, love is kind: It does not envy or brag;
Not proud, rude, self seeking, or provoked to be mad;
Love does not enjoy evil, nor keep a record of wrongs;
Love rejoices in the Truth [with a joyful song].
Love bears everything, with faith, hope, and endurance;
In the end Love never fails [and that's our assurance]."

In fact, chapters 12 through 14 make it clear that Love is the pre-eminent gift of the Holy Spirit, and that without Love, ALL other gifts, talents, and abilities are simply worthless.

In the last chapter of First Corinthians, we are told "Let all that you do be done IN LOVE." And in the last verse of Second Corinthians, we are blessed by the words "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."

In Galatians chapter 5 we find that Love is foremost among the fruit of the Spirit. In Ephesians chapter 3, Paul prays that we would "know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that [we] may be filled with all the fullness of God".

I could go on and on about how Christ and His Love are the two central themes of every book in the Christian Scriptures, but I am sure you get the idea.

I could tell you about how James speaks of Love as "The Royal Law", or about how Peter tells us "Above ALL, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins."

I could talk about how John's first letter sums up God's character and essence and motivation by simply saying "God IS Love". Not once, but twice.

And I could keep going on about how this letter makes it clear that Love for God and neighbor is so interconnected, that how we Love God IS how we Love each other, and how we Love each other IS how we Love God.

But I will skip to the end of the Bible. Today's reading from Revelation shows us Scripture's final vision of what God desires for His entire creation.

And what is it a picture of?

Love.

Unbroken fellowship. Complete intimacy. Final healing. A place where God dwells with us, and we live forever in God. A place where death and separation are no more.

God's Main Thing is Love.

Love is the Source. It is the motivation of Creation, the overflow of the inner life of the Triune God, and the whole reason we live and move and exist.

Love is the Center. It is the spiritual gravity that draws the whole universe into God through the person of Jesus. It is the healing power that radiates from Christ, filling all creation with the light and warmth and energy of His Holy Spirit.

Love is the Goal. It is the New Heaven and New Earth, where we will all share unbroken fellowship, and complete healing, in the presence of Christ.

This Divine Love is not some selfish, sappy, saccharine sweet sentiment.

Love is giving self away for the good of another. It is the exact opposite of treating people as consumable objects to use, abuse, and throw away. Love is willing and working for their healing, health, wholeness, harmony and happiness.

It is more compassionate than a mother nursing her child.

It is more angry than a father breaking up a fight between his children.

It is more serious than a doctor healing her patient.

It is more joyful than newlyweds on their honeymoon.

It is more courageous than a hero dying for his beloved.

In a word, Love IS Christlikeness, for Christ IS Love embodied.

THIS is the Main Thing: That you are filled with God's Love; That you connect with the Risen Christ who is the Source of Love; That you are filled with Christ's Spirit to empower you to Love.

I pray that we all would allow the Love of Christ to so fill us, that it overflows into concrete acts of Love to all those who God puts in our path.

May we always keep HIS Main Thing as OUR Main Thing.

And that IS the Main Thing. Amen+

Facebook Passion of the Christ

2010-03-28T10:42:00.000-05:00

It's time again: See the Passion in a new way...

http://canter.s437.sureserver.com/fbp/facebookpassion.pdf

For Everything a Season

2010-03-14T20:02:00.002-05:00

2010.March.14

Dear Canterbury Community,

My sisters and brothers in the Lord, the book of Ecclesiastes reminds us that "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven… a time to plant and a time to harvest… a time to weep and a time to laugh." Over the last 3 1/2 years I have shared many tears, and even more laughter, with you all. You have planted love and joy in my heart that is impossible to put into words, and I hope I have planted Christ in your lives as well. And now the Lord has harvested what you have sown into my life, and has prepared another field for me to work in as the chaplain at The Episcopal School of Texas / Texas Military Institute in San Antonio [EST/TMI website: www.tmitexas.org]. My ministry at Canterbury will end on May 31, 2010, and I will begin at EST/TMI on June 1, 2010.

This move was not something I initially sought out. But, as many of you know, because of the economic downturn, even though Saint Michael and All Angels did a heroic stewardship campaign, our budget was down substantially, and we were not able to keep all of our staff positions. As a result, my employment at Saint Michael will end on May 31st, leaving Canterbury SMU as only a part-time position.

After interviewing several places and looking at all of the options, including not only EST/TMI, but also the possibility of other part time positions in addition to Canterbury, as well as other full time positions in the Dallas area, it became obvious that God's hand seems to be at work in bringing us to San Antonio. The position combines several skill sets that I am passionate about, including working with families and teens, teaching Theology and Scripture, Preaching, Pastoral Care, Liturgy design, and even Residential Social Work (as I work with the boarding school students at EST/TMI). It is the right time and the right place for our family to move.

We will be living on site at EST/TMI, on an 80 acre campus at the foot of the Texas Hill Country, northwest of San Antonio, right off of Interstate 10. I will be providing religious instruction, pastoral care, and sacramental ministry for the 450 students and staff of EST/TMI, as part of their faculty and administration. The campus is an exciting place, with a broad mixture of genders, ethnicities, and socio-economic levels among the students from grades 6 to 12. Approximately a third of the students are in the "Corps of Cadets", and 50 students are also resident on site. It looks to be both a challenging and fulfilling role to fill.

I thank you all so much for keeping Kim, myself, Elise, and Taggart in your thoughts and prayers over the last couple of months as we prayed and searched for the next phase of our ministry. Now, we will keep you in our prayers as we begin the process of transition to the next phase of Canterbury's ministry. As we go forward, please be assured of the following:

- Ministry at Canterbury will continue as scheduled for the remainder of this school year.

- Ministry news and events will continue to be posted at www.canterburydallas.org.

- We are currently working with our bishops to provide pastoral support for Canterbury for next year.

- We will keep you updated on how the process is going.

- After May 31st, Nate will still be available via email at natebostian@gmail.com.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact The Rev. Nate Bostian, our current chaplain [214.505.9859 / natebostian@gmail.com] or Tracy Pounders, esq. our chairperson of the Canterbury Board of Trustees [canterbury@pounders.us]. Thank you.

May Christ fill your life,

The Rev. Nate Bostian

GOD HAS GIVEN US HIS WORD

2009-12-26T16:55:00.001-06:00

A Sermon For Year C, Christmas 1
Copyright © 2010 Nathan L. Bostian
Based on Galatians 3:23-25;4:4-7 and John 1:1-18

I want to begin by congratulating us. In the last few weeks, most of us in this place have made our shopping lists, and checked them twice. We have figured out who was naughty, and who was in fact nice.

We have licked envelopes until our tongues tasted like glue. We have wrapped presents, tied bows, and endured paper cuts innumerable.

We have listened to approximately 237 hours of Christmas music, watched three versions of Dicken's Christmas Carol, and seen "It's a Wonderful life" 2.4 times.

We have been to more Christmas parties than we can count, eaten more cookies and pies than we should have, and realized that 7% of our body mass is now made up entirely of Turkey and Dressing.

And now, instead of spending this hour writing thank you cards, or taking out garbage cans full of wrapping paper and gift boxes, or figuring out where to put up all our new presents, we are here.

We have made it though a lot to be here today. A lot of people. A lot of activities. A lot of family drama. So let us all take one, big, deep breath.

You are here. In the Lord's House. To worship.

In the midst of doing, doing, doing, you have come here to just "be". To just "be" in the presence of the Lord. You are not just a human doing. You are a human being.

So, take another deep breath and just "be".

Look around you. Look at the altar. Look at the cross. Look at the stained glass. And as you look, remember WHY you are here.

And just "be".

Listen for a moment. After a holiday full of noise, full of joy, full of drama: Listen to the silence [pause].

And just "be".

Why are you in this place today? Why did you come here? What are you seeking?

This place is a refuge from the hustle and bustle of the world all around us. It is not only a sanctuary in the religious sense, but it is a sanctuary in the fullest sense: It is a safe place to retreat from the craziness of life.

It is a safe harbor from the hurricane of endless activity and deadlines and decisions that swirls all around our daily lives.

It is a place to reconnect with WHY we exist, WHO we really are, and WHO we really belong to.

That is why I am here. To reconnect. To just "be" in the presence of God. To re-center myself upon the One who is the Center, the Source, and the Purpose of all existence.

And it is because of this that I believe the Gospel reading for this Sunday after Christmas is perfect. Every year, it is the same reading: The beginning of the Gospel of John. The Story of the Word of God who became one of us.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and lived among us."

Now, like translating any language into English, this reading looses a little in the translation. Because the Greek word "Logos", which we translate as "Word", does not fit neatly into our language.

Logos can mean many things, depending on the context it is used in:

If Logos were used in reference to a building or a work of art, it would be the essential shape that makes the thing what it is.

If Logos were used in reference to a Story or a Drama, it would be the Plot or Purpose that drives the Storyline to its completion.

If Logos were used in reference to a song or symphony, it would be the musical score that tells all the instruments how to converge and diverge to create beautiful music.

And yet, this Logos, this Word of God, is still more than the Purpose and Plot of our existence. These are still abstract and impersonal. They miss the full translation.

Another way to get at it would be this: Let's say you come to me and need me to help you somehow, and it's really important, and if I can't help you, then you will be in a real tight spot.

Then I look at you right in the eyes and say "Don't worry. I give you my WORD. I will be there for you."

That gets at the personal side of what John is saying here when he talks about Jesus being the Word of God. Because when I give you my Word, I am not just saying "yes". I am not just giving you a promise. I am giving you myself. I am saying "Trust in me. I will be here for you".

So, this beginning of John turns out to be saying something revolutionary, something that had never happened before on the world stage.

Because, on one hand, John agrees with most cultures and religions and philosophies across history. Most people have some sense that our world is created by a creative "Word": That there is a Purpose, a Plot, a Meaning behind our existence that guides our lives, and our history, to a goal.

That is not a very revolutionary idea in itself. But what John does that is revolutionary is to say that THIS Word has come to us, and become one of us. In Jesus, God has looked us straight in the eye, and said "Don't worry. I give you my WORD. I will be there for you."

History is littered with the assumption that humans must struggle and strive and work to attain that Purpose that is "out there", somewhere beyond us, as something abstract and unattainable.

But John makes the incredible leap of faith to the idea that this Purpose has not stayed "out there". Instead, that Purpose has given us a promise in Christ. That Meaning has given us Himself in Jesus. That Word has said "Trust in me. I will be here for you".

John says that God has given Godself to us, to be seen by us, to be known by us, to be touched by us, in Christ Jesus.

I supposed if God had wanted to make Godself known to ants, God would have become an ant. Or if God wanted to be known by dogs, God would have become a dog. And who knows, perhaps God did do just that, and we haven't found out yet.

But we do know that God has made humans in God's own image to Love God and be Loved by Him, to know God and make God known.

And so, after God had prepared humanity for his arrival through Ages and Stages, by sending Prophets and Sages, God became human to be KNOWN by humans.

That is what John is getting at by saying that "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The Law is the preparation. It is the set of instructions to clean the house to prepare for holiday guests. First you clean the bathroom, then the kitchen, then the bedrooms, then the living room, and so forth. After that, you are ready for your company to come.

Moses and the whole Tradition of the Jewish Law was a preparation for our Christmas Guest: The God made flesh. This Law taught us to put God first, to not confuse idols with the Real thing, to make space and time to worship God, to treat other people with justice, dignity, and Love.

And not only was the Jewish Law a preparation for the coming of God in Christ, but many cultures have been a preparation for Christ as well.

Early Christian teachers, like Justin the Martyr, taught that Greek and Roman cultures prepared the Gentiles for Christ, in the same way that the Jewish Law prepared Jews for Christ.

Many cultures, many belief systems, give us a "Law" which is fulfilled in Jesus. They teach us that there is a Purpose and a Meaning guiding All Reality; They teach us to avoid idols and illusions which masquerade as God; They teach us about Love and Justice and the dignity of human life.

But they are all incomplete. All miss the mark. All fall short. Whether it is the Hebrew Law, or Greek philosophy, or another worldview: The best they can be is a preparation for our Guest.

Grace and Truth, God in human form, comes in its fullest in Christ. In Christ, God doesn't just give us another Law. He looks us in the eye and gives us His Word.

And that is why this reading comes at the perfect time of year every year.

Every year, we enter into a month-long period of intense activity that runs from Thanksgiving to Christmas.

Every year, we run ourselves ragged by doing, doing, doing, and we desperately need a place to just "be".

Every year, we finish Christmas exhausted, and we desperately need a time to rest, reflect and re-assess our lives: WHY we are we here? WHO are we? WHO do we really belong to?

And every year, we are confronted with the fact that the Purpose of our lives, the "Why" of our existence, has sought us, and found us, and is present to us in Jesus Christ.

In fact, in our society, it is almost as if we purposely re-live the struggle between the Law and Faith that Paul speaks of in our reading from Galatians today.

Think about it: Every year, summer ends, and the activity ramps up. This is especially true of families with kids in school, but it is also true of anyone who lives around friends or family with kids in school.

Which is just about all of us.

And so, as the fall semester begins, we plunge into activity after activity, and event after event. We live our lives by our appointment calendars and our to-do lists.

These calendars and lists tell us what must be done, who must be seen, where we must go, and when to be there.

Each kid, each job, each organization in our lives has their own calendar, their own list. And these lists and calendars fight with each other for dominance.

What will win? Family time or the project at the office? Do we go to Sally's ballet recital, or Billy's soccer tournament? Will I spend time helping with the school project, or completing the spreadsheet for the presentation?

And then, as fall turns into winter, a new set of calendars and lists are imposed on us. What are the Thanksgiving plans? When do we schedule the Christmas parties? What does everyone want for Christmas? How can we possibly find enough time and money to buy gifts?

And all of the lists and calendars crescendo into a symphony of controlled chaos on Christmas, when Christ finally arrives.

And afterward, finally, all is calm again. There is rest. The presents and the parties and the calendars and the lists are finally done. If only for a few days. There is rest.

You know what all these calendars and lists and requirements and activities sound like to me? They sound a lot like what the Bible calls "Law".

And this cycle of chaotic activity finally leading to rest in Christ: It sounds a lot like what Paul describes when he says:

"Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith."

Do you sometimes feel imprisoned by all the activities and requirements in your life? I do.

Do you sometimes look at your appointment calendar and to-do lists as a disciplinarian who sternly guards your life? I do too.

Do you yearn to reconnect with the real Purpose and Meaning for your life, to find that Faith that has been left behind, somewhere in the clutter and chaos of everyday life? I do too.

When Paul uses the word "justified", it means to be put back into a right relationship, a right standing with God.

And that right relationship is not one where we are slaves, endlessly toiling for a harsh boss, who will never be happy with our hard work. That right relationship is not one in which we check our to-do list to see if we have done everything to please God.

Rather, that right relationship is that of children, who are held close by our Father's embrace. It is a relationship where we freely, without shame, call God our Abba, our Father, our Daddy. That is what it means to be justified before God.

So, in the calm and peace of this first Sunday after Christmas, I call upon us to realize that our struggle with the Law is over. I call upon us all to embrace God as our Daddy once more.

In this place, at this time, we are free from lists and calendars and activities. We are free to just "be" with our God.

I call upon us to be silent, to rest in God's Love, and to realize that the Meaning of Life has become flesh. In Him, God has looked us in the eye and given us His Word:

"I will never leave you or forsake you. I am yours forever."

Thoughts on the Presiding Bishop's Visit

2009-12-17T11:03:00.005-06:00

On the weekend of December 12-13th both Canterbury House SMU and Saint Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church (hereafter SMAA) were visited by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori (hereafter +KJS) and the longest-ordained bishop in the Anglican Communion, Bill Frey (hereafter +Frey). At SMAA, +KJS and +Frey talked about "Who is Christ for me?" and "Who is Christ for the world?". In this, +Frey represented a voice of "conservative" Anglicanism, particularly with his long standing association with the charismatic renewal movement, and his teaching experience at Trinity School for Ministry (an Evangelical Episcopal Seminary). +KJS, on the other hand, was a voice of "liberal" or "progressive" Anglicanism, with an emphasis on social and ecological justice, which has been one of the hallmarks of her ministry as Presiding Bishop. It was great to see two bishops who represent two different strands in the Anglican tapestry come together to discuss the Person at the Core of Anglicanism: Our Lord Jesus Christ.

After the discussion at SMAA, we hosted +KJS for a community wide Eucharist at Canterbury collegiate chapel. This was followed by a visit from +Frey on Sunday night. Both preached and celebrated Eucharist with our young adults and others who were gathered each night. Since I got to see and hear both of them up close and personal, I have been asked by many people what I thought, especially about +KJS. For those who may not know, some in the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas tend to have a bit of opposition toward the Presiding Bishop and the "National Church", so it is with some controversy that +KJS was here. So, for those who want to know what I thought, read on:

Regarding the Presiding Bishop Visit to Canterbury on December 12th:

As far as her visit to Canterbury goes, the event went awesome. +KJS did an excellent job of interacting with the young adults and making my folks feel special, especially as she stood in a circle talking to them for about 30 minutes. Out of the whole weekend, this pastoral interaction pleased me the most. They were very excited to have her come, just as they were excited when former Archbishop George Carey came to visit last November, when the Archbishop-elect of Uganda came last Spring, and when +Frey came the following night. In fact, since +KJS was here on Saturday and +Frey was here on Sunday, for largely identical services, these events gave my students a great experience of the breadth of Anglicanism.

In addition, +KJS was very pleasant, and actually showed a sense of humor which I had not seen before. Her homily was spot on, and could have comfortably been preached by any Creedal clergyperson in the world. It was solid and clearly rooted in the spirituality of Advent and Christ's Incarnation. Her liturgical style was quite a bit "lower" than I practice. But, she is a graduate from a "low church" seminary after all. Her vestments were, as always, festive and interesting. [;-)] My folks played their parts well, and the music was fabulous. It was a great night all around. It was a delight to show Christian hospitality to our Presiding Bishop, and to receive it right back from her.

As far as the +KJS / +Frey discussion at SMAA goes:

You know, I have mixed feelings about this weekend. I am firmly Incarnational and Trinitarian (=Creedal), so I think some of her statements were a bit soft in the discussion. At the same time, I have gone to seminary with students and professors who are Unitarians and Pantheists, and her statements about Jesus' divinity were much, much further than they would be willing to go. She was clearly in the Trinitarian/Incarnational camp, but with a hesitant, empirical, "scientific" cast to the way she expressed it.

She affirmed Jesus as the "Divine Architect" and "The Second Person of the Trinity", as well as affirming a few times that it was the entire course of Christ's life that was salvific. In this, she explicitly affirmed Christ's historic birth, life, crucifixion, and resurrection. In her argumentation style, I was actually reminded of how +William Temple carefully constructed his arguments in a scientific manner. Thus, I am fairly comfortable with her Christology, although I personally would speak in a less reserved manner about Jesus as both our Lord and God. However, at the end, when she was asked about the bodily resurrection, she recounted the Biblical narratives of Jesus appearing and eating with the disciples, and then said "that is how they experienced it, but I was not there". I was not satisfied with her lack of specificity, and the lack of personal ownership she expressed in that answer, and wish she had gone further.

In the discussion, she spoke of Jesus going to hell and "turning it upside down to look for Judas". I realize where she was trying to go with statements about Jesus emptying hell, and going in search of Judas, which are rooted in Alexandrian-Cappadocian theology of Apokatastasis in the 3rd-6th centuries. For those who do not know, Apokatastasis is an Eastern Orthodox, Christ-centered, redemptive vision of hell and ultimate reconciliation of all Creation in Jesus Christ. She, along with +Frey, also drew heavily on the Eastern Orthodox idea of theosis/deification, in which salvation is primarily a personal union with God, by which the individual comes to share in God's life through Christ without "merging" or loosing personal identity. A favorite Orthodox analogy is how a sword may be plunged into a fire so that it glows and takes on the fire's energy, without actually merging and becoming the same as the fire. We are the sword, and we come to be infilled with God's energy as we draw near to Christ in Word, Sacrament, and Prayer.

However, I don't think she clearly laid the groundwork to explain and use these concepts. For instance, she quoted Athanasius "God became human so that humans might become divine", and said things such as "[Jesus] is the ultimate sacrament of God" embodied in a human person. These ideas could be (and have been!) misinterpreted by people that seem to have little familiarity with the Orthodox Theological sources she is drawing from. I will confess that I personally am sympathetic to the Incarnational, Apokatastatic Trinitarianism that we find in the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory,Gregory, and Basil) as well as Athanasius' "On the Incarnation", as well as Irenaeus' recapitulatory atonement theories. So, even though +KJS did not fully or clearly explain what she was referencing, I am sympathetic to that theology for many of the same reasons I am sympathetic to theNicene Creed and its unique construction (for instance, using homo-ousias instead of homoi-ousias, etc.). Both were authored by the same group of people: The Alexandrians and Cappadocians.

Her comment on "Green Jesus" and Christ's mission of Liberation to ALL Creation was perhaps her least explained reference. It is clear that Jesus is a prophet of Liberation (and also God Incarnate!), when we read references like Luke 4.18-19. If I were trying to make her point, I first of all would not use an adjective (Green or otherwise) to describe our Lord. He is who He is without adjectival attribution. Second of all, I would make the point that God's justice for individuals is tied to creating more just structures in society, and that in turn is connected with how we, as societies, steward the Creation that has been loaned to us by God.

Then I would probably then argue that the inherent basis of Consumer Capitalism is the "profit motive", which is nothing other than the vice of greed writ large in nice handwriting. I would point out that we need to establish another basis for our economic and political system than this vice (maybe love or justice?), lest our whole economic-political system will implode upon our heads with thunderous crash. And then I would tie that back into the process of Evangelism, in which we bring individuals and communities into relationship with the God who is Love (not greed!) through Jesus Christ. So, on the "Green Jesus" I applaud the idea she was trying to get at, even if I would not use her route or wording to get there.

Swimming beneath the surface of +KJS's lectures seemed to be a profound discomfort with ontology and metaphysics, and her value of concrete action which liberates real people in real situations. I think she comes by this honestly from two directions: Both as someone trained in science, and who has "come of age" in postmodernity. Both the strength and weakness of her training as a scientist is that such training necessarily focuses on the particular, the empirically measurable, and the quantifiable. Thus, it is with great reserve that she theologically jumps from particularity toabstract forms, metaphysics and ontology. This kind of "bottom up" view of theology is common among the great scientist-theologians of the Anglican tradition, notably +William Temple, and more recent folks like John Polkinghorne+.

In addition, she seems clearly affected by the postmodern critique of ontology. If the scientific critique of ontology is that it tends to explain more than the evidence warrants, the postmodern critique is that such explanations tend to be an ideological mask that power hides behind to oppress others. And, anyone who is honest will see the validity of both critiques, taken in measure. Often, static ontologies of eternal unchanging structures lead to violence against those who will not conform to "The Ontology" (as can be clearly seen in examples ranging from Catholic hierarchy to Marxist liberation to Nazi fascism to Cutthroat Consumerism). Static ontologies make what is "really Real" into some unchanging, unseen system, which is then appropriated by those who can use it to legitimize their oppression and exclusion of "the other". This leads to a cultural/worldview system which stuffs Reality into the "box" of the ontology, thereby cutting off limbs of the Body to make it fit.

I rehearsed this fairly standard scientific and postmodern critique of static ontologies to make it clear why some, such as +KJS, feel uncomfortable setting down "Absolute, Objective, Metaphysical Ontologies" which declare how Reality MUST be, prior to ever encountering Reality as it really is. But, perhaps there is a way out. What if ontology is dynamic, and not static? What if there is indeed a "Metaphysical Absolute", but one which is relational, active, and living? I would propose that the way through the scientific and postmodern critique of ontology, which was embedded in +KJS's theology, is found precisely in the Metaphysical Ontology of the Trinity.

The ontology of the Holy Trinity would lead one to the belief that "Ultimate Reality" is not something static, but Someone who is dynamic, relational, living, interpenetrating, dancing, emerging, and self-giving: Someone who is Love. In short, the dynamic ontology that grounds the Universe is none other than the Triune God, who eternally loves in perichoresis shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and overflows into the creation and redemption of all things. This idea is made most accessible for me by Roman Catholic Philosopher Peter Kreeft in lectures such as thisand this. This emergent, dynamic, relational, Triune ontology provides a sure metaphysical basis to ground "traditional" theological concepts like Incarnation, the Body of Christ, and sacraments, as well as more "contemporary" theological concerns like liberation, inclusion, and justice.

Overall, what interested me about the lectures was how +KJS was so rigorously Scriptural (in the first lecture) and so rigorously traditional in the Eastern Orthodox sense (in the second lecture). And +Frey was based almost entirely in personal experience. These roles were "reverse" of what we would expect from a "conservative" and a "liberal". In fact, +Frey made some theological moves that are typically very "liberal", such as saying:

In regards to judging the salvific status of non-Christians: "We have to let God be God…"
In regards to missionaries going to "unreached" places to share the Gospel: "[Christ] is already there, often anonymously."
"If our Trinitarian theology is even remotely correct, we can't run into God without bumping into Jesus."
"[Jesus] came to destroy religion and open the Father's heart to the world."

All of this is pretty radical. And both of them ended in an expansive vision of Christ's Personal and Global redemption, with a strong emphasis on Social Justice. I loved that. By the end of the lecture, it seemed that in most ways, both +Frey and +KJS were describing the same Jesus, but using two different languages (and as we know, when we compare any two languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, we find that each has it's strengths and weaknesses in what it can express and what it has trouble expressing).

With that said, I know she had her "Dallas persona" in full play, and not her "New York persona". It would be a sin against charity to speculate on which persona of hers is more "genuine", if either, so I will leave that to God. But I will note that she, like nearly everyone I know including myself, does change her persona depending on who we are speaking to. For instance, my collegiate sermons are different than my sermons to older folks which are different than my sermons to kids. In addition, this blog article has undergone four different major revisions as I sent it to various people, and finally prepped it for "public" posting.

The thing that did not come up this weekend was, of course, Church politics, gay unions, gay ordination, women's ordination, how the "National Church" handles dissenting groups, and how dissenting groups handle non-dissenters (and each other!). That, of course, colors how one looks at the whole thing. I honestly don't have much to say about that other than that I think all sides involved exhibit exceptional degrees of gracelessness and truth manipulation, through gossip and public legal action (this among Christians!). For instance, here is one example and then another, among countless that could be named. So, I am not attracted to any "party" in this debate. If I go further into specifics, it will only result in being labelled by both sides as one of the other sides, so I will decline to go further. The best I can do is work where I am at, with the people God has given me, to help them know Jesus and grow into all his fullness. So, that is what I will do, so help me God.

May Christ fill your life,

Nate+

Which Holy Crap Must Go?

2009-12-01T23:58:00.000-06:00

A friend sent me an incredible article by Walter Russell Mead called "The Holy Crap Must Go". Well, this article struck quite a chord with me. So, I wound up writing a whole lot...

Initially, when reading his rant about being property-laden and bureaucracy bound, I was cheering along with him. I think acquisition of property and power is the besetting sin of Christendom, and it is at the root of so much of what is wrong with the "Christendom Model" of doing things (where we tend to treat persons as property, while giving our property the status of persons... But I digress).

So, the first several paragraphs were singing my song. And I do not want the rest of my critique to overshadow my MASSIVE agreement with him on the property and bureaucracy issues.

In the second half of the article, he began a critique of clerical training and the clerical profession.

I think clergy as "profession" is a rather unhelpful category inherited from the corporate world which needs to be dismissed almost entirely. "Profession" is a frame, or container, to hold a set of ethical norms and specialized practices which are unique to ordained life. Unfortunately, "profession" is also necessarily caught up with the idea of success, forward progress, and increasing status which is measured in economically quantifiable terms (i.e. money received, butts in seats, etc.).

If we use the concept of "profession" to measure the ministry of Peter, or Paul, or Jesus for that matter, then what we find is that they were dismal failures. Not only did they fail to keep up "professional" decorum (read Matthew 23 or Galatians, for example), but their ministries ended as numerical and financial failures, including their own deaths.

Yet, quite obviously they were successful in non-economic, and non-immediate terms. People do not gather on a weekly basis to remember any of the Caesars, Alexander the Great, or even Henry Ford. But they do for Jesus and his followers.

Also: Implicit, incipient in the concept of "profession" is an inherent slant TOWARD economic, quantifiable measures to judge the "success" or "failure" of ministry. If being clergy is a profession, then the most successful practitioners of that profession necessarily have larger buildings, bigger budgets, and more attendance. It is true of the Mainline infrastructures formed in the 20th century, and it is true of the Megachurch infrastructures formed now. All of them will collapse under their own professional weight.

So, I think a hidden key to this entire discussion resides at the heart of clerical identity itself. In fact, the best category to place "clergy" is not in the box labelled "profession", but in the box labelled "vocation" or "calling" or "mission" or "vision" or just plain old "identity".

To be ordained as a deacon/minister, or as presbyter/priest, or (God help you!) as bishop/overseer is not to enter into a "profession" with a series of "benchmarks" you must pass as you advance up the "corporate ladder" to "success". To be ordained to any of the clerical orders is to receive a new identity and a new life-mission as a member of Christ's one holy catholic apostolic Church.

If we think of the Church as a Family (which it is), becoming clergy is to become a spiritual parent who has responsibility and response-ability to nourish, protect, and raise into maturity other members of the Family. If we think of the Church as a Body (which it is), becoming clergy is to become part of the "skeletal system" which provides support, structure, and boundaries so that the other organs of the Body can function and move and reach out to the world around them.

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. If we think in terms of clerical "identity", "vision" and "vocation" (instead of "profession"), then we begin to measure clerical "success" in qualitative, spiritual terms rather than quantitative, economic terms. A faithful, consistent ministry will be valued more than a ministry that built a 3000 seat worship center. Mother Teresa will be valued more than Joel Olsteen.

Like it or not, the clergy provide for the structure and continuance of the Church as a recognizable entity. And, the manner in which clergy provide that structure and continuance is largely a matter of how clergy are FORMED in their identity.

If you form clergy to have a quasi-theological ideal of clergy as "profession", then they will structure and continue the Church by building large buildings, and forming complex bureaucratic systems, as evidence of their "success". But, if you form clergy to have a deeply theological sense of clergy as "vocation/vision/identity", then they will continue the Church by mission, by preaching, by catechesis, by raising up missionally minded lay leaders who take Jesus with them into their families, workplaces, marketplaces, and civic responsibilities.

And all of this ties into what I think is the BIGGEST FLAW in the article: His demeaning of clerical education. It is almost as if he has taken a page out of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" to say "If you can read, you can lead".

The truth is, we need better clergy formation, not worse. We need better clergy formation because, at the least, clergy come out thinking being clergy is a "profession" rather than a "vocation". While this may be one small issue, it reflects a deep bias in the way in which most seminaries- even good ones- train clergy. It like saying that, when you reduce Christian ministry and mission down far enough, you find "it's all about the economy, stupid".

And that is the besetting sin of American culture: To reduce, flatten, all of reality into strictly economic terms. Income versus expenses. The ledger. Cost / benefit analysis. The bottom line. We read all of history this way, either with a Capitalist or a Marxist spin to it (depending on which news channel you decide to watch!).

We need clergy to be educated so that they can effectively think, preach, teach, and pray outside of the box of American consumerism, with its devastating reduction of all facets of life to strictly economic terms. We need a clergy that can think theologically, rather than merely economically. We need a clergy that can think historically, rather than just in terms of marketing psychology. We need a clergy that can see all of life in terms of God's Mission, rather than in terms of the market.

And while he may be right that "An increasingly well-educated and independent minded society doesn’t need as much guidance from professionals as it used to. Curious parishioners can get many of their religious and theological questions answered on line..." This does NOT mean that they are getting good information. Nor does it mean that they are analyzing that information from the right vantage point. Dump all the theological information you want on someone thoroughly enmeshed in a consumeristic worldview. All you will get out of them is an economic-marketplace analysis of that data. For real worldview transformation, mentoring and pastoral care is required so that a person can "see" another way of living embodied in another person.

I think that one of the comments on his post was very telling: "The core spiritual ideas of the Society of Friends would work very well in the kind of local, people centered approach." And they are right. Quakers/Society of Friends are the original form of contentless, make-your-own-way, super-individualistic, semi-buddhist-quasi-christian, church-that-is-not-a-church. His approach leads to a lowest-common-denominator kind of Church where Christianity is a contentless spirituality that is anything to any body. There is no one authorized to speak on Christ's behalf, and no historical or theological reflection really guided by anyone. Rather, "church" becomes a cafeteria spirituality developed from articles on Wikipedia which re-capituates every heresy and schism over the last 2000 years.

For real transformation of people and communities, what is required is a cadre of well-trained "organic intellectuals" who are able to envision life outside of the world system we are in, and lead people in that vision to personal and communal transformation. These "organic intellectuals" need to speak both the language of the people, but also the language of the vision. They need to be implanted into the communities they serve, to incarnate the vision to those around them. These organic intellectuals need to have a personally felt sense of mission and vocation, which gives them clarity of mission, even in the midst of hardships and apparent failure.

This language of "organic intellectuals" was developed by Antonio Gramschi, a Communist theorist, at the beginning of the 20th century. But I think it describes well the vocation of clergy, and what clergy training is needed to empower them for their mission.

So, we need better clergy education and formation.

This starts by selecting people for clergy formation who HAVE ALREADY demonstrated significant gifts for ministry by actually DOING ministry in a sustained fashion. We need to stop selecting people who have little or no Christian formation, and even less ministry experience, and then thinking that seminary will somehow "fix" the problem and give them an authentic spirituality by the time they graduate.

To reduce student debt and increase pastoral practicality, I think we should probably make use of a hybrid parish-and-seminary system of education. For more "cognitive" classes on Scripture, History, and Systematics we rely on seminary professors in a classroom setting. For more "practical" classes on Liturgy, Pastoral Care, and Administration we rely on practicing clergy in the local diocese who have been identified as particularly effective in those areas. Perhaps a local parish (the Cathedral?) might be designated as a "clinical parish" where ordinands run the ministries under the mentoring of a very experienced priest or two. Maybe it could even be a quasi-cloistered environment for the ordinands.

And did I mention that if a denomination calls a person into the ordination process, they are morally bound to pay for the costs associated with education? We would consider it immoral for a wealthy person to demand that a their workers pay them for the honor of working for them full time. Yet, we send ordinands to work full time for 3 or more years in seminary, and pay for it all themselves, or go into crippling seminary debt, and then expect them to take jobs that can't pay for their families and their debt. And we wonder why people don't want to become clergy.

And I haven't even critiqued the 5-10 year hazing ritual that we call "the ordination process". The "hoops" are supposed to be there to weed out bad apples from ordination. But, there are plenty of bad apples who make it through the process, and plenty of good apples who see how messed up the Church is and bid adieu to ordination. And, if we only called people into ordination who ALREADY demonstrated significant gifts for ministry by actually DOING ministry in a sustained fashion, then most of the bad apples would be gone by the sheer nature of what it takes to actually DO ministry rather than just talk about it.

So, in contrast to the article, I say that clergy need better education and formation. Not longer. Not more costly. But better. Education that better enables them to grasp the vision of clerical identity and clerical vocation.

If we heal this wound- the wound of trying to make the Church into a "professional" world, run by "professional" clergy, which is successful by "professional" socio-economic measures- then the Church can be reformed and the holy crap can be thrown out. It will be thrown out because clergy will start to see ministry in terms of vocation and vision, and will form communities of Christ-followers who live into such a vision, and they will naturally jettison all of the "holy crap" so they can continue with Jesus' mission to heal the world.

A Camaro with the License Plate "Allah"

2009-11-30T09:58:00.001-06:00

[not an actual picture of car, but one just like it]

So, I'm coming out of the coffee shop, and I see behind us: A Candy apple red 1992 camaro with personalized license plate "ALLAH". No kidding. Apparently God rolls In a muscle car…

So, my buddy Bret says "Perhaps Western Capitalism is wearing down even Muslim extremists? After all, it is a very enticing idol."

That got me thinking…

This raises a great irony for me. On one hand, societies that are [nominally] "Christian" have been the ones who are the largest exporters of colonialism and consumerism. Both of which are explicitly condemned by Christ, who, by the way, is the God who "emptied himself", became a slave, and was crucified [cf. Phil 2.]. In short, Christ, even though perfectly obedient, was spectacularly "unsuccessful" in consumer terms. So, the basis of our "Christian worldview"- Christ Himself- is in fact antithetical to the social system it is used to uphold.

However, on the other hand, in Islam, God remains ever-transcendent, never enters into human affairs directly, and explicitly promises material prosperity in return for obedience to Quran. Furthermore, the life of Muhammed (PBUH) and his early followers shows that Islam can be rightly spread "at sword point" to unwilling peoples. So, Islam would seem to be the perfect divine under-writing for both colonialism and consumerism. And yet, extreme Muslims, whatever else their faults may be, at least are able to identify and decry the sickness in postmodern Western consumer society.

Now this is what I call a paradox.

But, as Bret noted, perhaps this paradox is shrinking away under the commodifying leer of the consumer monster.

FOR ALL THE SAINTS

2009-11-07T10:06:00.001-06:00

A Sermon For All Saints, Year ABC

I bring good news from the fabled land beyond Perkins, beyond midterms, beyond papers, beyond Credos, beyond internship, and even beyond graduation: There is light at the end of the tunnel my brothers and sisters!

If I made it through, you can too! Really… Ask my professors. And I made it through with my sanity intact. Sort of. Well, I did made it through.

Anyway…

Today we come together to celebrate that rare and elusive creature in Christian culture: The Saint. Or, to be more exact, all Saints. Every single one of them.

In fact, you could say that today we come together to celebrate those who stand at a far bigger podium and say to us:

"We bring good news from the fabled land beyond death, beyond suffering, beyond trials, and even beyond tribulations: There is Light at the end of the tunnel brothers and sisters!

And if we made it through, you can too!"

In fact, in the readings for our Feast Day in the Revised Common Lectionary, I think we find this theme woven throughout the texts: The idea that there IS hope, there IS something beyond the struggles we face now... There IS a final "graduation", so to speak.

Whatever else may be said about our reading from Revelation- and there is A LOT that could be said- it is clear that the author wants to assure us that those who live AND die in Christ will have a place with God and all the saints.

A place where God, in all of God's fullness, will finally be at home among humanity, dwelling with the saints forever, as God "wipes every tear from their eyes" so that "death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away."

And whatever else may be said about the Gospel reading from John- and there is A LOT that could be said there too- it is clear that John wants to show us that Jesus has the power to assure us of this hope.

Jesus is revealed as the embodiment of the Love that is stronger than death, a Love that can literally summon the dead back to life. Jesus is the one who makes concrete, tangible, and accessible this hope for something beyond death, beyond suffering, beyond "normal" life.

And while this hope for our final "graduation" is all good, and true, and beautiful, I think it misses something important to our celebration of All Saints. Because Saints are not just a kind of "down payment" for an eventual life with Christ BEYOND this life.

Even more importantly, Saints are an invitation to Christ-likeness in THIS life.

Saints are notorious examples of conspicuous sanctity. Saints show us glimpses of what can happen when Jesus really takes hold in a person, and the Christ-life begins to take over.

Above all, Saints are lovers. Passionate lovers. Head over heels lovers. People crazy in love with God, and crazy to share God's Love with everyone they can.

Can you imagine what would really happen if the all-consuming Love of God were to burn within your heart?

Can you imagine what it might be like if the Life that brought Lazarus back from the dead began to resurrect the dead parts of your life?

Can you imagine what might happen if Jesus were to look straight into YOUR face and speak the words "Unbind her, and let her go!"

Well, if you can imagine such a thing, I confess your imagination is a bit bigger than mine. Because I can't imagine it. Not on my own.

But saints help with that. What I cannot imagine, God can. And what God imagines, God does. And I see THAT in the lives of the great Saints- those women and men who have burned with the passion of Christ's undying Love.

Most of us here know that, in one sense, we are all saints. Saints with a small "s". Scripture and Christian tradition says that all of God's people are "set apart", "consecrated", "sanctified", and "made holy". And that is what saint means: A set apart, sanctified, consecrated, holy one of God.

But, unless we are blind, it is clear to see that some of us are better at living into this than others. All God's children are saints with a small "s", but we recognize those who are exceptionally Christlike with a capital "S".

It is these men and women- these Saints with a capital "S"- who claim our imagination, as we try to envision what the Christ-life looks like lived out.

In fact, my favorite definition of what it means to be a Saint is actually CS Lewis' definition of what a Christian is. For Lewis, a Christian is a Christ-ian, a little christ, a little embodiment of the Divine Life that lives in Jesus. A Saint is a little christ.

A Saint is not primarily someone who does miracles and healings, although many saints have, while many more have not.

A Saint is not primarily a theologian who plumbs the depths of scholarly knowledge, although many saints have, while many more have not.

A Saint is not even primarily a mystic who climbs the heights of visionary ecstasy, although many saints have, while many more have not.

A Saint IS primarily a living embodiment of Love, a little christ who re-presents the Christ-life to the world.

Have you ever seen someone whose eyes radiate God's Light with every glance? Who exuded Love and joy and peace and patience and goodness and kindness and faith and humility and wisdom with every deed? That was a Saint.

Have you ever been around someone whose very presence assured you that God does indeed Love you and can use you, no matter how many flaws and foibles you have? That was a Saint.

Have you ever read a writer who did all of these things? A writer whose words leapt off of the page, causing you to imagine new possibilities of how this Christ-life can infect our lives, our churches, our communities, and our world? That was a Saint.

We tend to think of Saints as lofty and unapproachable and incredibly impractical. But I believe that the actual purpose of Saints in God's plan is humble and approachable and completely practical.

In fact, I believe Saints are a remedy for some of our most besetting sins in the Church, and in the Seminary.

And here is why: We like ideas and plans and programs and property and power. No, let me be honest. I like ideas and plans and programs and property and power.

And when I hear of "sanctity" and "holiness" and becoming a "little christ", the first thing I want to do is turn it into a study committee. Let's get together and come up with the ten main ideas about what it means to be holy.

That's step one. Step two is that we create a plan. How do we accomplish these ten concepts? What are our objectives? What are our benchmarks?

Step three: Let's create a program to accomplish it, complete with steps that rhyme, and some acronyms to boot.

Step four: Let's brand it and market it.

Step five: Let's get property and infrastructure to support the business model.

Step six: Let's clarify a contract to define who is "in" and who is "out" of our program, and make sure the power structure is clear.

Step seven: Let's fight each other over the concept, the brand, the program, the power, and above all the property.

Step eight: Let's sue each other. In Christ's Name, of course.

Sound familiar?

I know that was horribly reductionistic and completely unfair. But something LIKE this often happens, on the Right, on the Left, in the High Church, in the Low Church.

It has happened, and is happening, and will happen, anytime we reduce holiness to checklists and ideologies and loose sight of authentic holiness embodied in Christ and his Saints.

This is because it is easy to make holiness into something abstract, indefinite, and theoretical. And, as any Biblical scholar can tell you, it is also easy to make Christ into something abstract, indefinite, and theoretical.

I personally love the abstract and theoretical. I love ideas and systems. But Saints stand before us as actual, definite, practical witnesses of what holiness looks and feels like.

What we need, is to see Jesus with skin on. We need to feel Love embodied. That's where Saints come in.

So Saints are embarrassingly concrete embodiments of what it means to be holy, of what it means to live God's Love.

Saints are the ones who can speak Truth to power, and minister Healing to pain. Saints remind us that our life in God cannot be formulated into a simplistic plan, nor turned into some perfect program.

Saints show us that life in Christ is messy yet magnificent, and there is no shortcut, no express elevator, no inside route to holiness. The only Way to Holiness is the Way of Christ, the Way of becoming a little christ.

In fact, I wonder what would happen if we applied this definition of sainthood to everything we do in the Name of Christ.

What if we judged everything we do as Christians by whether or not it produces saints, whether or not it creates little christs?

Do our methods of reading and explaining the Bible produce saints?

Do our doctrines and doctrinal systems create little christs?

Does our teaching and preaching and catechizing draw us into Christ or make us less Christlike?

Do our liturgies and spiritual practices encourage us to live out God's Love?

Do our efforts at outreach and programs for Social Justice create Christlike communities?

Do our leadership structures facilitate or hinder saint production?

Do our controversies and squabbles and infighting produce holiness?

What if passionate, Christlike holiness was the key criteria for how we did everything as Christians. What might change?

[Pause]

At this point I want to quote at length the best sermon I have ever read about saints by Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft. Although I disagree with him on many things, about the Saints we are in complete agreement:

"The deepest reason why the Church is weak, and the world is dying, is that there are not enough saints... No, that's not quite honest. The reason is that WE are not saints.

Can you imagine what ten more Mother Teresas would do for this world? Or ten more John Wesleys? No, you can't imagine it, any more than you could imagine how twelve nice Jewish boys could conquer the Roman Empire.

You can't imagine it. But you CAN do it. You CAN become a saint. Absolutely no one and nothing can stop you. It's your totally free choice…

If you will look into your own heart in utter honesty, you must admit that there is one, and only one reason why you are not, even now, as saintly as the primitive Christians: You do not wholly WANT to be.

That insight is terrible because it is an indictment, but at the same time it is wonderful and hopeful because it is also an offer, an open door. Each of us can become a saint. We really CAN. We REALLY can.

I say it three times because I think we do not really believe it. For if we did, how could we endure being anything less?

...The human soul is a tube, like a tunnel connecting two places, heaven and earth. If the tube is open and empty and hungry on the heavenly end, to suck grace in, then and only then will the tube be full like a cornucopia on the earthly end to pour grace out.

[An] American Catholic bishop [once] commissioned one of the priests of his diocese to write up recommendations for ways to increase the number of [people] seeking to fulfill a clerical vocation.

The priest was young, but wise and holy. He concluded his report this way: "The best way to attract [people] in this diocese to the priesthood, Your Excellency, would be your canonization."

When we see a saint, we know the purpose of our own lives. Saints reproduce themselves simply by being what they are.

So why can't you be canonized- become a saint?

...It's embarrassingly simple. We have been promised, by God incarnate, that all who seek, find. In other words, "just say yes," "just DO it".

It's infinitely simple, and that's why it's hard. The hard part in the formula "just say yes" is the first word: "just". We are comfortable with Christ AND ourselves, or Christ AND our theology, or Christ AND our psychology, or Christ AND our country, or Christ AND our politics, or Christ AND culture, or [even] Christ AND counterculture;

But just plain Christ, Christ drunk straight and not mixed, is far too dangerous for us." [Peter Kreeft, How To Win The Culture War, pages 102-106]

So says Peter Kreeft. But is he right? IS just plain Christ too dangerous for us? Are we ready for Christ, the whole Christ, to infect us with His Divine Life and turn us into little christs?

We are about to approach His table once again, to partake in an ancient ritual, where we encounter this Christ in the breaking of the bread, and the drinking of the cup.

We are literally invited to the banquet table with Jesus, to drink him straight and un-mixed. With our bodies, with our mouths and our lips, with our hearts and our minds, we get to literally invite Christ once again to fill us with God's life.

Christ's invitation is here for you. He invites you to become a saint, a Christ-ian, a little christ. His invitation always stands, and never changes.

What about you? As you come forward to partake in this Holy Communion, and share in Christ's life, what is YOUR invitation to him? Amen+

[Silence]

AFFIRMATION: And now, with saints who have gone before, saints who stand with us now, and saints yet to come, let us affirm together the faith of the Church by using the words of the Nicene Creed…

What does it mean to be human?

2009-11-07T10:02:00.002-06:00

A Sermon For Year B, Proper 22

Based on Genesis 2:18-24 and Mark 10:2-9 

What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be a woman or a man who is made in the image of God?

When biology explains the origin and function of our physical bodies; When psychology describes the workings of our minds; When consumerism is used to manipulate our behavior and buying patterns: What is left of being human?

Is there anything special to our existence? Anything that separates us from beasts or birds or rocks or molecules or corporations?

You see, we live in a world that is often reductionistic. It is our habit, for some centuries now, to reduce human life to "nothing but".

We've all heard it before. We are nothing but the products of our environment. Or nothing but our genetics. Or nothing but how we are raised. Or nothing but electro-chemical reactions in our brains. Or nothing but a reflection of cultural expectations.

Often the people who tell us this are well meaning. They are people who have studied human life long and hard. And they finally think they have THE KEY to understanding who we are, and what it means to be human.

So they share THE KEY with us, in hopes that it will make life understandable, manageable, and predictable. And, let's be honest: Who among us would not like life better, if we could understand what is going on just a little bit more?

But, we are now several centuries into the quest of science to exhaustively explain what it means to be human. Thousands of theories of "nothing but" have come and past. And we are still as confused as ever.

We can never say exactly why one child turns into an Adolf Hitler, and another child turns into a Mother Teresa. We stand perplexed by people who have everything and fail, while others have nothing, and succeed.

And we just can't seem to scientifically create the perfect society full of virtuous people, free of tragedy and oppression. If anything, after a century of two world wars, dozens of genocides, and countless disasters, we seem more confused than ever.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think science is a great thing. I like modern medical care, and refrigeration, and flush toilets, and cell phones. Science has told us a great deal about how we work, and how to fix us.

But science just doesn't have the tools to tell us WHY we are here. Reductionism, nothing-but-ism, cannot seem to reduce the complexity of WHO we are.

Science may be able to tell us a great deal about HOW we got here. It can tell us of big bangs, and origins of species, and mechanisms for biological change over time.

But knowing our origins does not tell us our destiny. Knowing how does not mean knowing why. Knowing what does not mean knowing who. And all of the science in the world is not able to answer the question "Why is there something instead of nothing"?

Of course, poets and prophets have been prattling on about this for millennia. They have been telling us that humans can observe and explain everything, except ourselves. They have been preaching that there is more to life than meets the eye.

But poets and prophets are a strange lot, so we tend to ignore them if possible. As a result we often get into cultural wars of "either-or". Either science or spirituality. Either reason or faith. Either we are explained away as "nothing but" or we are not explained at all.

But it isn't just the occasional oddball who says that there is more to human nature than meets the reductionistic eye. Not a few scientists have said the same thing.

It was no one less than Physicist Albert Einstein who said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". And it was Blaise Pascal, the inventor of calculus- thanks Blaise!- who said "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know".

And they are just two of a steadily growing voice across history that has said that human life is NOT reductionistic. It is not "either-or". Rather, it is "both-and". We know what it means to be human by BOTH science AND spirituality, BOTH reason AND faith.

They complete one another. They are two sides of the same coin. Two dimensions of the same reality.

And it is this "both-and" understanding that allows us to listen to Scriptures like our readings today, to find out about what it means to be human. Because we believe that in them, God breaks through into our world to tell us things about ourselves, that we cannot learn by our own observation, no matter how scientific.

In the Creation poem that is written one chapter before our Genesis reading today, we hear the divinely inspired poet tell us that God said:

“Let us make humanity in our image… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

This God is spoken of in paradoxical and poetic ways as a Divine Person who speaks a Word of Creation, and then forms chaos into order through the work of God's Breath, the Divine Spirit.

So this God is One Reality who exists in some sort of Community as Creator, and Word, and Breath of God. This God speaks as a Community and says "Let US create humanity in OUR image". And then when humanity is created, we are created as community: As male and female together, sharing in the image of God.

This paradox of the One God in Community is made clearer through the experience of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the early Church. This eventually came to be known as the Trinity: The One God who exists in community as Father, Son, and Spirit, sharing in each other's Love for all eternity.

So when God breaks into history to tell us about what it means to be human, it turns out that our human nature is actually a picture of God's nature. And God is Love, shared between the Creator, the creative Word, and the Breath of God.

And that's where we are at when we get to the second Creation story of Genesis, which we read today. It is this story that tells us about woman as a "helper" to man, and about how they become one flesh.

And immediately following this, we hear the passage from Mark, in which Jesus gives commentary on the same text, using it as the basis for his teaching on the tragedy of divorce.

Now, I speak to you today as someone who has gone through divorce, both as a child of divorced parents and grandparents, and as someone who has been married twice myself. I know from experience how difficult these texts can be on this issue. And I know that when these texts are read, the first thing I expect is a sermon on marriage, gender, and divorce.

But instead of this, I want to listen to what these texts have to say first and foremost about what it means to be human. Because I think it is only by understanding what it means to be human that we can begin to understand why our human relationships- whether they are marriage or friendship or any relationship that shares God's Love- why they are important.

So, the first thing we hear in our Genesis reading is that it is not good for the human to be alone. And this is weird, because after every day of creation in the first chapter of Genesis, God said: It is good… It is good… It is good.

Now, suddenly, something is not good. Something is not complete. Something is missing. The question is: Why? Why is it not good?

It is not good because humans were made for community. They were made to be images of the God who IS Love and shares Love in community forever.

Our world often stresses that we are individuals first. We are individual consumers, with individual tastes and needs, and individual skills that we must use in the marketplace to maximize our value. We must individually find ourselves, and individually makes ourselves into who we want to be.

But Scripture begins with a fundamentally different starting point. It does not deny that we are individuals. In Genesis God calls individuals like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Hagar, and Rebekah.

But, God's revelation does not start with humans first as individuals, but with humans as community. And not just a community of people who are the same as each other. But as man and woman, a community of people fundamentally different from each other.

I know we are all used to it by now, but sit back and think about what a monumental difference that is. What bigger natural difference could there be than the average woman and the average man. We are shaped different. We think different. We communicate different. We operate on different biological clocks. We use the bathroom different.

And sometimes some of us forget to put the lid down when we're done.

Just think about it: Not only did God create us in God's image as a Community, but God created us as different kinds of persons bound inextricably in relationship with one another.

Our natural inclination is to think of our individual self first, and then only relate to people who are like us. But who we are is quite the opposite. We become who we are only in community, only by loving people who are different than we are.

And this fundamental difference between man and woman in the Genesis text is a metaphor for ALL the different ways there are to be human: Not only different genders, but different sizes, different ethnicities, different cultures, different skills, different ways of seeing and being in the world.

In fact, it turns out that communities of radically different persons joined together in Love reflects God's fullest intention for what it means to be human. By the time of the early Christian movement, we find Saint Paul writing things like this to the Church in Galatia:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I often think of being in community with radically different people as a sort of "add on" to who I really am. Something I do to enrich and expand myself, like an extra-curricular activity.

Yet, when I reflect on the God who is Creator, and Word, and Spirit- the God who is a community of radically different persons joined in Love- I find that it is only in this kind of community that I find what it really means to be me.

When we enter into community with people who are different from us, we find that we become helpers to each other, just as the woman was a helper to the man in Genesis. Where one is weak, another is strong. Where one lacks, another has plenty.

Often when we hear that God will make a "helper as his partner" or "helper suitable to him", it is easy to think that the woman is being painted as somehow inferior to, and derivative to, the man.

But when you dive into the Hebrew vocabulary and ask "What does it really mean for the woman to be a helper?", you get a surprising answer. Because the word "helper" used here also refers to one other significant person in the Hebrew Bible.

That person is God.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible God is seen as the Helper who supports, fulfills, and completes human beings. Just as the Psalmist prays: "God is my helper; the Lord is the upholder of my life."

When the poet calls woman a "helper" to man, it is actually a profound theological statement: She is one who completes God's image in humanity, as a supporter and full partner with man.

And again, looking at this through the eyes of the early Church, this role of helper becomes more than just a male-female thing. It becomes the role for all the radically different people who are joined in Love within the Church. In our differences, strengths, and weaknesses, we become helpers to each other. We fulfill the image of God in each other.

Again, Saint Paul- who never seems to be able to keep his mouth shut about this issue- devotes a whole chapter in his letter to the Corinthians explaining what it means to live as different members in the Body of Christ.

He talks about how we are all radically different, but one organism bound together by Christ's Spirit. He says things like: "the members of the body that seem to be weaker are actually indispensable", and "If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it."

Different, yet one. Individuals, but only through community. Helpers, who support and complete and fulfill God's image in each other.

THIS is what it means to be human. THIS is what it means to bear God's image. THIS is why Jesus said things like "the two shall become one flesh", and Paul said things like "you are all members of one Body".

May we all become people who reflect the image of God by seeing God's image in one another. May we all help each other live into all the fullness of God's Life. And may we all remember that human destiny is joined forever with the God who is a community of Love. Amen+

JESUS AT THE BREAKFAST TABLE

2009-11-07T09:57:00.002-06:00

A Sermon For Year B, Proper 12 BCP

Based on 2 Kings 2:1-15, Mark 6:45-52

So, were you REALLY listening to the Gospel Story that just got read today? Were you thinking about what was going on? Did you perhaps imagine what it was like to actually BE in that boat with the disciples, as Jesus came waltzing across the water?

I mean, do you even believe that Jesus could do such a thing? Walk on top of stormy seas without falling in?

I've known many folks who rationally dismiss the whole thing as pietistic propaganda. They say everyone knows that people simply do not walk across water. We don't have the buoyancy. We are a bit top heavy. We tend to sink.

And they lump this story in with just about every other miracle story as propaganda carefully crafted by the early Christians to get people to join the Church.

They believe that miracle stories, especially outrageous miracles like walking on water, are custom tailored to say "Look! My God is bigger than your God! NaNaNaNaNa!"

But I still believe in miracles. I have seen things that defy any attempt at purely rational explanation. I have seen lives healed, people delivered from bondage, and incredible interlocking events that cannot be accurately described by the word "coincidence".

I bet you have experienced events like that too. Miracles.

And, I even believe this miracle happened. I believe it because it doesn't read like propaganda. Propaganda is smooth, rational, carefully argued.

This story is not smooth, or rational, or carefully argued. This story is messy. In the verses before this story, Jesus just fed thousands of people with a handful of food. But, instead of resting- instead of basking in the glow of miraculous success- Jesus orders the disciples to hop in the boat and row to the other side of the lake.

And Jesus goes up to a mountain to pray.

Instead of staying for fame, publicity, and adoring crowds- which is what you would expect from propaganda- Jesus and his disciples leave.

That doesn't make sense. Not if you are interested in propaganda.

Then, with no one around except a boatful of scared, poor, ignorant fishermen- not the kind of people you want as star witnesses if you are testifying before the powers of the world- with no one around but them, Jesus does perhaps his most spectacular miracle.

He literally wills control over the laws of nature, and walks on water like a model walks on a fashion runway. If I was going to craft propaganda, I would do a much better job. I would write about Jesus doing miracles that astonished the powerful, the prosperous, and the important. But this Gospel does just the opposite.

I mean the disciples don't even GET what happens here. They think he is a ghost, a phantasm, an apparition. They are scared stiff. And when he does get in the boat and the storm ceases, they don't get that either. Their hearts are hard, impenetrable, and ignorant.

And it's not like Jesus is hiding anything here. Its all out on the table. When he says "Take heart! It is I!", what he literally says is "Be courageous! I AM!" I AM is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

That's an incredibly un-subtle way of saying Who he really is. He is I AM. He is God embodied. God undercover. God with us.

But nobody gets it. And that means, if it is propaganda, its really badly written propaganda. Because if there is one thing that propaganda is, it is clear. Propaganda tells you clearly what is good, what is bad, who is in, who is out, which is dark, and which is light.

But there are very few things in this Gospel that are that clear. It is as if someone has all these messy stories of what Jesus did and taught, and they throw them out there, and say: "Here's what I experienced. You decide what to do with it."

In fact, when I read the Gospel of Mark, more than any other Gospel, I get the feel of sitting at the breakfast table talking to my Grandmother, my Mamaw.

Mamaw had all these great stories. And she was old enough not to care what other folks thought of her stories, or of who she was. She just told it like she remembered it. Stream of consciousness. Interjecting whatever came to mind in the middle.

She would tell of what it was like to live in the Great Depression. She would talk of her daddy, the sheriff who rode on horseback in southern Arkansas.

She would talk of being married to a bootlegger during prohibition. She could talk of making ammunition in World War II, of going through desegregation in the 1960's, and of the time she was convinced that the Russians were attacking Little Rock.

And by telling those stories, Mamaw made sense of her life. She shared what she learned, and who she was.

Were all of her stories completely accurate and delivered with scientific precision? Heck no. But were they still true? Did they still happen? Did they still shape the identity of this incredibly interesting person, and her often quirky family? Yes and Yes.

When I read Mark I get this same sense. Its almost as if someone pulled up a chair to the breakfast table with an elderly Peter, or one of the early disciples, and said: "Tell me about how it all started. What was Jesus like?"

And these experiences and stories just pour out…

"Well, there was this time we didn't have no food, and Jesus, he wanted to feed the whole crowd! And we didn't know what to do, till Jesus blessed some bread and fish, and fed the whole bunch of 'em.

"To my dying day, I will never figure out how he did that. Then I tell you what. That man told us to leave right then, and meet him on the other side of the lake. And Jesus did that thing he always did, where he went up on a hilltop and prayed.

"And like it always did, that ol' wind kicked up somethin' fierce. And that's when we saw him. Just strollin' across that ol' lake.

"Only we didn't know it was him at first. I thought it was a ghost. Andrew thought it was an angel. Then we heard that voice say 'Be Courageous! I AM!' Now what kinda person says 'I AM'. Hmmm.

"Then he got up in that boat and everything calmed down. Jesus had a way a' doin' that, y'know. Then we went right on to the other side, where, wouldn't you know it, there were a bunch a sick folks and crazy folks and…"

Have you ever read the Gospels like that? Like you are sitting at the breakfast table with an old friend who is telling stories? Have you ever imagined yourself in the stories, as a participant?

I have this bad habit when I read the Bible, and you may have it too. So, I will share it with you. You see, I often read the Bible to try and prove something. Prove I'm right. Prove someone else is wrong. So, I dissect it and rip it apart until I find just the right piece of evidence to support my case.

Then there are other folks who do the same thing to prove they are right too. And then there's a whole different group of folks who read the Bible in the same way- picking it apart- to try and prove the Bible itself is wrong.

So the Bible gets used like propaganda, to be proven or disproven as it is collected and categorized and analyzed and dissected. No wonder there are so many folks out there who are scared of the Bible and want nothing to do with it. Folks like me have a tendency to use the Bible in a scary way.

But what if that's not the point of the Bible? What if the point is to invite us into IMAGINE ourselves in a story: The Story of a God who enters into History and calls us to Love him and Love each other? What if the key to understanding the Bible is first and foremost our imagination, long before we do any rationalization?

Or, let's look at the same issue from a completely different perspective:

What kind of stories do YOU like telling over the breakfast table? What kind of stories bring a sparkle to your eye and life to your soul? What kind of stories do you get so wrapped up in that you loose time?

Here's the beginning of some stories that no one enjoys telling or hearing:

"When I met this person, and I could tell from the way they looked exactly what kind of person they were. And you know what, I was right!" Or...

"Well, let me tell you about the time I accomplished my five year plan with pinpoint accuracy!" Or...

"Here is how I make sure nothing unexpected ever happens in my life…"

Think about it: What is the most unsatisfying kind of movie to watch? What is the most boring book to read?

The kind where you know exactly what is going to happen from the very beginning. We are shaped by God to dislike stories that are predictable, punctual, planned, formulaic, and prosaic.

We crave drama, difference, distinctiveness. This is because we are created in the image of a God who does amazing, unpredictable things, like entering into His own creation and walking on water.

So why do we treat the Bible, and religion, and spirituality in a way that is predictable, punctual, planned, formulaic, and prosaic. Why do we insist on God fitting nicely into our pre-made boxes?

Now, do not get me wrong. I also believe that God made us as planners and thinkers and rational beings too. God created the world with order and structure and purpose.

Its just that in our culture, it is easy to loose the amazing, creative, unpredictable side of our life in Christ to the rote, routine, and reasonable side of life.

For example. Here is my cell phone. On this phone, I have my plans and appointments for the next two years. I also have all of my family's plans, all of our play dates, all of our sports games. I have contact information, phone numbers, and emails for all of the people in my professional and personal life.

I have five email addresses I can check. I have facebook. I have twitter. I have text messages. I have voice notes. I have a camera. I have the Bible in 30 translations. I have the Book of Common Prayer. I have internet, newspapers, files, documents, and much more.

This does not count all of the planning and preparation and paperwork on my computer, at my jobs, at home, in the mailbox, and scattered in my car. Multiply that for my wife and life gets very complex, very quickly.

And I say all of that because I know most of us in this place face similar levels of pre-planned complexity in our own lives. In fact, I know of people from Junior High age, up to well past retirement, who I would consider much busier than me.

And I think it can all take a toll on our life with God. We can have so many good things in our life- legitimately good gifts given to us by God- that we allow them to squeeze out what is best. We allow what is good to squeeze out what is God.

And not only that, but we allow it to squeeze out our sense of awe, mystery, and meaning in life. We allow it to squeeze out relationships. I know the times are few and far between, that I am able to just sit and BE with someone, and enter into their stories.

I know that if Jesus walked across the water right now, I would probably miss it because I would be too busy checking my email. I know that if God were to send flaming chariots from heaven right now, I would probably miss it because I was worried about getting to my next appointment on time.

Are you in the same place?

How long has it been since you took time to sit with God and enter into God's Story? How long has it been since you made space in your life for God to do something miraculous and awe inspiring?

How long has it been since you have watched for Jesus to walk into your life, across the troubled waves of anxiety and scheduling and responsibilities and requirements and paying the bills?

We all have to plan. We all have to structure our lives so they work. We are all busy. And much of that cannot be changed.

But we can carve out a space to sit with God at the breakfast table and listen to God's Story. We can come to Scripture without an agenda to make it say what we want, and instead imagine ourselves WITHIN the Story it tells.

We can make time to just BE with God for a while: To be a human BEING rather than just a human DOING.

And that is my prayer for us all. I pray we would make space in our lives for God to do something amazing and miraculous. I pray that in the midst of all our DOING we would remember we are human BEINGS made in God's image to live life with God. I pray that we would find Jesus telling stories at our breakfast table. Amen+

Trust Jesus to Touch You

2009-11-07T09:53:00.002-06:00

A Sermon for Year B, Proper 9. Based on Mark 6:1-13

By Nathan L. Bostian

Now, I do not know about you, but if I walked into a hospital chapel, and heard that reading from Mark, I would be wondering something. I would be asking questions. I might even be scratching my head.

Because a hospital is a house of healing. It is supposed to be an environment where our diseases can be diagnosed, and treated, and hopefully cured.

But then I walk into this chapel- a place where we are pray for the healing of the patients, and wisdom for medical caregivers- I walk in and hear this text read:

"And Jesus could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief."

What am I supposed to do with that text?

If I am patient, what am I supposed to do with the fact that there were some who Jesus couldn't heal?

If I am the loved one of a patient, what am I supposed to do with the fact that it seems like Jesus couldn't heal people because of their "unbelief"?

And if I am in the medical profession, skilled in the healing arts, what am I supposed to do with the fact that the Greatest Healer of all time couldn't heal certain people?

This is a tough text. This is a text to wrestle with. This is a text that makes us turn to Jesus and ask him "God, what is UP with that?"

It would be easier to deal with another passage where Jesus heals the multitudes, no questions asked. It would be easier to talk about the 8th chapter of Romans, where Paul says that NOTHING in all creation, neither trials nor tribulations nor life nor death, is able to separate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus.

It would be easier. But I don't think it would be the text God wants us to wrestle with today.

And in Church- especially in a Church where you read through all of the Bible, even the hard parts- sometimes we have to deal with readings that challenge us in the depths of our need.

Sometimes we have to deal with texts that make us wrestle, strain, struggle, sweat, and maybe even shed a tear or two.

But the promise of Jesus is that He is right there beside us, wrestling, straining, struggling, sweating, and even shedding tears.

So, let's be honest. Not everyone gets healed the way we want them to get healed. It doesn't matter if it is Jesus, or the latest multi-million dollar medical technology.

Not everyone gets healed.

And some of us may be struggling with that today. We might have a loved one who is not doing very well. We may be someone who has been looking to be healed for a long time, but it just doesn't seem to be coming. We may be someone who helps others heal, but no matter what treatments you try, there are still some patients you can't help.

And I don't know about you. But I know how I might feel. I might be hurting, physically and emotionally. I might feel scared. Or afraid. Or frustrated. I might even feel a little angry.

Maybe even more than a little bit.

And I might have questions that God does not seem to be answering.

And the reality is that in Jesus Christ, God is right there with you going through it all with you.

God did not stay up in heaven, unconcerned and untouched by all we go through. God did not stay on his Throne, afraid to get dirty with his children.

No, God did the unthinkable: In Jesus, God became one of us. God put skin on. God got his feet dirty.

In Jesus, God faced real human pain, real human frustration, real human fears, and real human death. Saint Paul's letter to the Philippians puts it this way:

"Jesus, who was in Reality God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of humans. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name."

Jesus knew what it was like to not be healed, because he faced suffering and death with us. And Jesus knew what it was like to not be able to heal others, because some would not trust him.

But Jesus also knows that this is not the end. Sickness and pain and death do not have the last word. Lack of healing does not have the last Word. Because Jesus rose from the dead, we KNOW what the last Word is.

The Last Word is Life. The Last Word is Love. The Last Word is Hope.

And so, when we read passages like ours today, we ALWAYS have to keep the Last Word in mind. That's what Jesus did. And that's what kept Jesus going.

When confronted with the struggles of real people, it was Jesus' Word of Love that kept Him going. When confronted people's lack of faith, and rejection, and suspicion, it was Jesus' Word of Hope that kept Him going. When confronted with His own mortality, it was Jesus' Word of Life that kept Him going.

So, with that Last Word in mind, what do we learn about healing and hope in our Bible reading today?

The first thing we learn is that personal trust is what allows the healing work of Jesus into our lives. Our passage today says that when many were not healed, it was somehow connected with their "unbelief".

In fact this "unbelief" amazed Jesus. It flabbergasted him. Here he was, offering to heal and make whole, and all folks could do was make fun of him, for his background and upbringing.

It would be like if I stood here offering to give you a million dollars, and instead of taking it you just stood there and made fun of how bald I was, and how funny the collar of my shirt was.

Why would they react like that to Jesus?

There was probably a lot of reasons they were skeptical and offended by Jesus, but they all boil down to what the Bible calls "unbelief".

Now, when the Bible uses words like "unbelief" or "belief" or "faith", we often think of that as something you think about. We think about belief as something that means having right ideas about God, Jesus, the Bible, and so on.

And so we falsely think, if we don't have the right ideas, then God rejects us. We mistakenly think if we have the wrong beliefs, then Jesus won't heal us.

And if we can just memorize and know the right facts about Jesus, then we can get healed. We can get God to do what we want, when we want.

But that is NOT how it works. That is not what the Bible means by "belief" or "unbelief".

When the Bible talks about belief or faith, it is talking about trust. It is not talking about having right ideas. It is talking about if you desire, depend on, hope in, confide in Someone else. It is talking about if you cling to Jesus, and won't let go.

Let me put it this way: I have a 10 month old baby boy at home. When he sees mommy or me, he crawls over to us, and wants us to pick him up. He clings to us.

When he cries, and knows we will answer him. When he hurts or is hungry, he trusts us to care for him.

Does he have a lot of right ideas about us? No.

Other than knowing I am the large, smiling guy with the beard and the shiny head, he knows no facts about me. He doesn't even know my name.

But he believes in me. He trusts me. He has faith.

That was what was missing from the folks in Jesus' home town. It wasn't that they didn't have right ideas about him. They had all the facts: They knew who he was, who his family was, and probably the whole story of his childhood.

But they didn't trust him. They didn't have faith in him. They didn't run up to him, and embrace him, and cling to him. They would not let him touch them, and it is the touch of Jesus that heals.

Think about it: In almost all the stories where people are healed by Jesus, what do they do? They touch Jesus. They embrace Jesus. They cling to Jesus.

They didn't memorize all the right facts about Jesus, and pass his pop quiz before he would heal them. They touched him, and trusted him with their needs.

That is how trust is really shown: When we allow someone to touch us, and share in our pain. When we allow Jesus to touch us, and share in our pain.

And that brings us to the second thing about Jesus' healing that is hard for us to understand: When we DO come to him, and let him touch us, then why doesn't God heal us the way we expect?

Why doesn't God make healing planned and predictable and punctual? Why do we have to wait? Why do we have to worry?

The truth is, life is messy. And when Jesus is at work in our lives, he works within our messiness, in messy ways that we cannot predict.

Or to put it another way: God heals us in many ways. When we let Jesus touch us, he is ALWAYS at work healing us, but often not in the way we expect.

For example: At the very end of our reading today, Jesus sends his disciples on a mission. And that mission was to continue Jesus' mission, and do the exact same things that he did.

What were those things?

It says that the disciples proclaimed repentance, cast out evil powers, and healed the sick. This is exactly what Jesus did.

These may seem like three separate things, but they are all part of healing the entire person. They are three parts of the same healing activity that God does in our lives.

First of all, you have "repentance". To repent is to change one's heart, to get rid of harmful ways of living, and to embrace healthy ways of thinking.

When the disciples proclaim repentance, they are healing people's hearts and minds. That is emotional healing.

Second of all, there is casting out demons. This means to get rid of evil powers that have rooted themselves in someone's spirit. It means to free them from bondage to wickedness and sin. That is spiritual healing.

And third, there is healing the sick. That's physical healing.

Emotional healing. Spiritual healing. Physical healing. All are part of the same healing touch, when we embrace Jesus in faith.

We may want physical healing, and that does not happen. But Jesus is still at work in that experience, bringing us emotional healing or spiritual healing, if we will open ourselves to it.

If we will trust him to touch us at the core of our soul.

I know that is difficult. I know it is hard to want one thing, and have God give us another. And Jesus knows it too.

And that is why he walks with us through the hardest of times, and gives us the Hope of His Resurrection.

And not only that, but we also know that if we let Jesus touch us, He will be at work healing us. It might BE a spectacular physical healing.

But often, it will be in ways that are invisible to the outside world. Even in ways we are not aware of. But Jesus will be there. Healing us with the Hope of His resurrection.

So, I encourage you today: Let the Last Word of Jesus be the Word that gives you Hope. Remember that sickness and pain and death do not have the Last Word. Resurrection does. Hope does. Jesus does.

And I invite you to trust Jesus to touch you with his healing touch. Let him touch you with the touch that can cure disease, drive out evil, comfort the heart, and even raise the dead.

Embrace Jesus. Cling to Him. Trust in Him. Amen.

Contemporary Worship, Pop Culture, and Traditional Critique

2009-11-06T10:33:00.002-06:00

Over the years I have found that I stand in a somewhat odd mediatorial role between those who love Contemporary worship styles, and those who love Traditional worship styles. This is because I actually love both styles, and I do not know of many people who can honestly say that. As a result, I have friends, parishoners and colleagues on both sides of the Contemporary/Traditional divide.

Often I hear rhetoric from both sides about how the other is dying. Advocates of Contemporary worship point to blossoming megachurches, huge concert and album sales by Contemporary artists, and the immense Christian youth culture that buys it all, as signs that traditional worship is all but dead. Advocates of Traditional worship often point backward to the fact that their style of worship has nourished millions over centuries of change, and will continue to do so through the changes in the future (they often miss the fact that at some point their style- even if it is monastic chant- was once the "new" way to worship!). They also point out the growing group of young adults who see the shallowness of much contemporary worship, and desire something deeper, more connected with the Great Tradition.

And, in all honesty, both are right on the money. And I want to explain why.

This essay was originally written to a friend of mine who is a young traditionalist, so that is why I tend to deal more with the "Contemporary" side of this debate than the "Traditional". At some point, perhaps I will be able to write an essay to someone arguing the other side of this coin. But for now, let us begin:

First of all, I know you don’t particularly like contemporary worship. And second of all, I know that you live in a cultural milieu that does not particularly like it. Thus, you think it is normative that most folks your age do not like it.

However, as a corrective I would offer this: Contemporary worship makes a ton of money, and it is marketed all over the place to every age group, in every form of media. Marketers wouldn’t do this if it was not a growing market (which it is, at every age level). If traditional worship was gathering the kind of market share you are envisioning, the marketers would not miss out on making money off of it. But, the fact of the matter is, the marketing segment devoted to traditional worship is much smaller than contemporary worship, which means that people simply aren’t buying as much. Furthermore, the younger the age group, the more of the contemporary product is bought.

This experience is echoed in my own experience as a campus pastor at a major university. Out of the 25 or so Christian ministries on campus, only about 4 of us would be considered "traditional", including Canterbury House Episcopal. Even the Catholics use mostly contemporary songs in worship. So, out of the 500-700 young adults who may be involved in Christian worship on campus in a given week, perhaps 40-60 are in solidly "traditional" worship in Episcopal, Lutheran, and Orthodox ministries; Another 40-60 meet at the Reformed University Fellowship and do hybrid worship using traditional hymns updated to modern instruments and rhythms; And another 200-250 worship at the Catholic student mass, which uses a traditional liturgy, but contemporary songs.

I have always found it fascinating that I have students come to me and ask for contemporary music "because everybody wants it that way", and also an equal number who come to me and ask to keep it all traditional "because everybody wants it that way". Apparently their circles of "everybody" do not talk to each other, because they do not seem to acknowledge each other's existence. But they sure do talk to me.

However, I think you are right that the number of 20-somethings who desire traditional worship forms is growing, and is more now than 20-somethings in 1990, or 1970 for that matter. But a similar trend can be seen in the desire of 20-somethings for ethnic food versus fast food. More 20-somethings today desire ethnic foods like Indian food or Sushi than 20-somethings in 1990 or 1970. But that does not mean that an overwhelming number do not eat at Taco Bell and McDonalds. I bet you and all of your friends prefer ethnic foods to fast food, but then again you all don’t hang out with many 20-somethings from Denton, or Mesquite, or East Texas. In many ways, I think contemporary worship is the equivalent of fast food, and traditional worship is the equivalent of ethnic food, and appeals to similar populations for similar reasons.

Or, to put it more sociologically: Contemporary versus Traditional worship covers just about the same social space as the divide between "pop" culture and "refined" culture. Those who like "pop" music tend to like contemporary worship. In fact, I would argue that a better term for contemporary worship IS "pop worship". Those who do not like "pop" music also tend to enjoy traditional worship. Likewise, those who enjoy art museums, and who listen to NPR and classical music for fun, tend to enjoy Traditional versus Pop forms of worship. The divide between the two says a great deal more about culture of origin than it does about the actual theological or liturgical differences between the two worship forms.

So, what shall I say?

On one hand, I agree with you. I obviously have serious critiques of contemporary worship, especially the evangelical variety, or else I would not have left it to come to the Episcopal Church.

I think there are at least three valid reasons to critique contemporary worship.

First, it is valid to critique it from a theological perspective. Much of the theological content is shallow, simplistic, reductionistic, and even heretical. Perhaps 70% of the songs I hear from the contemporary tradition have this problem. They are fast food.

Second, it often appeals to a hyper-individualistic, consumeristic sense of what makes ME feel good. Much of it is all about ME and MY feelings. This introduces an unhealthy narcissism into what should be a Christ-centered event. It also implicitly rules out community as it focuses on meeting MY needs.

Third, it simply is not for everyone aesthetically. Humans simply don’t like the same sounds, instruments, rhythms, and styles. And it is OK if contemporary music doesn’t do it for you aesthetically. But it is also fine if it does. And we should be honest about that.

Now, on the other hand, I think there are three invalid- even spiritually corrosive- reasons to reject contemporary worship.

First, I believe that there is not-too-subtle classism that is at the root of many people’s rejection of contemporary worship, especially in privileged areas. Traditional forms of worship- whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or whatever- are often associated with "high" culture. In fact, the difficulty of understanding and performing certain rituals, the difficulty of singing certain songs, and the difficulty of leafing through complex liturgical books, are all badges of accomplishment for those who want to identify themselves as “high culture”. These “religious difficulties” are often appropriated by those of a higher culture, to show that they are more able, more patient, and more refined than those of lower culture. They are used as implicit barriers to "keep out the riff raff", so we can have a "nice" Church service with "folks like us". As a result, there is an often “allergic” reaction of high culture people to popular forms of religion, which guises itself in the garb of theological or aesthetic critique, when in actuality these are just rationalizations for a desire to be "better" than those people “down there”. This kind of classism- which is also frequently racism as well- has no part in a religion which claims that all persons, of all genders, of all socio-economic backgrounds, of all educational levels, are beloved of God.

Second, most forms of popular religion are highly emotional and enthusiastic. They are overtly expressive in ways which indicate a passion and intimacy with God. The legitimate concern this can raise is emotional manipulation and an overly individualistic orientation to religion. However, many people are just plain uncomfortable with strong emotion, and may feel threatened that another person has an intimacy with God that they may not [seem to] have. And rather than deal with their own emotional baggage and relationship with God, they simply reject emotional forms of religious experience altogether. Such a rejection says more about that person’s emotional and spiritual problems than any problem with contemporary worship.

Third, I find that many people reject contemporary worship- and any other form of worship other than what "their priest" did at their "home parish" when they were growing up- because they simply fear change. They don’t like new things. They have huge control needs. And rather than admitting this, they create large facade arguments about theology or aesthetics to cover the fact that they simply want things to be the way they want them to be. Forever.

Now, I also want to note that a reverse corollary of people who reject traditional worship in favor of contemporary worship is true too. First, such a rejection may be a function of classism (I don’t want to be like those rich people!) or ageism (I don’t want to be like those old people!) or racism (I don’t want to be like those white people!). Second, it might be because they simply do not want to use their minds in worship, and instead prefer to always be swept away by their “emotions”. Third, it might be that they think worship always has to be different, new, and novel, and they have an inbred dislike for routine, tradition and discipline.

I also want to note that these are ploys of a consumer culture to get more people to purchase more product. First, socialize people to have a dislike of the "Other" (in classism, racism, ageism, etc.), and get them to want to purchase product based on "not being like them". Second, get them to stop thinking and rely only on emotions. This creates impulse buyers. Third, create in them the idea that things always have to be new and different, that novelty is good and tradition is bad. Then they will purchase things just for the sake of their newness, and to not be "old fashioned" or "out of date". So, I think that much of what drives pop culture- including pop worship- is a demonic consumerism that is sustained by the profit motive rather than the prophet motive. But that is another sermon.

I think that most people who reject forms of worship- whether traditional or contemporary- are actually doing so because of implicit classism, fear of emotion (or of reason), or fear of change (or of routine). These socio-emotional motives for rejection are then clothed with theological and aesthetic rationale to be given respectability, so that even those who complain and reject do not realize the REAL reasons why they are doing it.

So, with that said, I would like to offer three brief reasons why the Church needs traditional worship AND three brief reasons why the Church needs contemporary (or “pop”) worship.

First, the Church needs traditional worship for continuity. It is axiomatic that traditional worship preserves tradition. Tradition is the living memory of the organism of Christ’s Body. Without it, we perform a lobotomy on Christ’s memory and are doomed to repeat our mistakes over and over. Thus, tradition is a constant reminder of our identity and our story as Christ’s Body. And traditional worship rehearses this identity and story with maximal continuity.

Second, the Church needs traditional worship to feed the mind. Let’s face it: Traditional hymnody and liturgy is just deeper on a cognitive level. The great hymns and liturgies are repositories of spiritual knowledge, and often whole sermons- and systematic theologies- are played out as we rehearse traditional liturgical forms.

Third, the Church needs traditional worship for the fullness of the sacraments. Because traditional worship is an implicit recognition that the Holy Spirit functions through certain regular, repeated, routine actions of the Church, it is also an implicit recognition of sacraments. Much more than “new” forms, traditional forms of liturgy convey the idea that God is at work in and through human action, created matter, and repeated ritual.

And now for contemporary, or “pop” worship:

First, the Church needs contemporary worship to make use of all the tools God has given the Church. We take it for granted that God has given the Church the “technologies” of wine fermentation, bread baking, flame, and the printing press to worship God. However, we somehow doubt (or at least demean) that God has also given us other technologies, like drum sets, computers, projection systems, and sound systems for worship as well. As good and faithful stewards, we are called to at least explore the use of the technologies God gives us as means of worship. The early Anglo-catholic ritualist movement recognized this, and they moved the Church from a very “logocentric” spirituality, to a spirituality that made use of sight, sound, touch, and smell. They began in low class neighborhoods in England’s growing cities, and were roundly criticized by “proper” English culture in many of the same terms that "high culture" condemns popular worship today. But they were right in advocating “multi-media” worship, and I believe that we must make use of “multi-media” as much as we can today. But these new technologies, including projection and modern instrumentation, can also be used with traditional forms of hymnody and liturgy. It is often said that this is “not the Episcopal way”, but that is the same thing they said of the Anglo-catholics in the 1860s. Furthermore, as I have noted above, “not the Episcopal way” is frequently a catch-phrase for “i reject it because it does not fit the social class I want to be a part of”.

Second, the Church needs contemporary worship to meet the developmental levels of God’s people. Contemporary music is almost always less complex musically and theologically than traditional hymnody, while also being more complex than children’s songs. The reason is that, developmentally, it fits between the two. We sing children’s songs and preach children’s sermons to children because developmentally they cannot make sense of adult concepts and syntax. In addition, all the great studies of cognitive development show that a great many people reach a certain developmental level and stay there, with only minor changes over their lifetime. In the same way that not everyone can read a book on systematic theology and make sense of it, so also not everyone can “get” traditional worship. I would argue that it’s complexity both in style and cognitive substance make it harder to follow. Thus for completely developmental reasons there are many people- perhaps even the majority- will be touched by “pop” worship because it speaks to their developmental level. They should still be challenged and pushed to greater spiritual depths, but their normal “mode” of worship and religious experience rests soundly in the "popular" realm, and always will.

Third, the Church needs to be open to experimental worship to honor the creativity of God’s Spirit. The Holy Spirit is radically free, and radically creative, and inspires creativity in all of God’s children, whether they are Pentecostal or Anglican, refined or pop, highly educated or average. And when the Spirit inspires someone, that inspiration will be reflected in their abilities and on their developmental level. So, when we reject popular or contemporary worship simply because it is new or different, we are not just rejecting the artist, pastor, or musician, we are rejecting the Spirit that inspired them.

So, in conclusion, I advocate a healthy critique of contemporary worship, especially when it is theologically or morally dubious, simplistic, or in error. I encourage everyone to worship in a way that best fits their aesthetic and developmental levels, and to be honest when a worship form simply does not “fit” with who they are.

But I also encourage brutal honesty with ourselves about WHY we critique certain worship forms, with special emphasis on whether we are doing so because of classism, racism, agism, or because we are afraid of emotion, or rationality, or change, or routine.

In the end, I have one definition of "good worship": And that is worship which "draws" people into Christ. I mean draw in at least two senses: First, I mean draw in the sense of being brought closer, into deeper levels of union with the Triune God revealed in Christ, through greater emotional intimacy and cognitive knowledge of God. Second, I mean draw in the sense of an artist drawing someone or something. We are drawn into Christ as we become more Christ-like, more full of agape Love, more merciful, more just, more compassionate, more like Jesus. Good worship draws people into Christ in both senses, both as individuals and as a community, so that good worship creates individuals, families, parishes, and communities that embody the Risen Christ to the world.

This means that there are objective criteria for good worship. There are theological, moral, and social errors that can be objectively pointed out and named as corrosive to people being "drawn into Christ". But, good worship is also irreducibly subjective as well. Some folks are moved by a hip hop beat, while others like a waltz, while others like Anglican chant. Some are touched by a guitar, some by a harp, and some by an organ. Some feel distracted from worshipping God by big theological words and complex syntax in prayer, and some feel positively drawn closer to God by those same things. Even in the Bible, some Psalms are simple and repetitive, while others are complex poetic treatises. Even the two Pauline Christ-hymns in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 are very stylistically different ways of speaking of the same Event of the Incarnation of God in Christ.

All of this is to say that our opinions on worship forms need to be held with a large dose of humility. We need to realize that our opinions on both style and substance are often held primarily because of cultural, aesthetic, and developmental reasons, rather than because of solid moral or theological criteria. Furthermore, when we feel like seriously critiquing another's worship on theological or moral grounds, we need to first do a "gut check" and honestly assess whether or not our critique really arises from a base motive, only to clothe itself in theological respectability. There ARE valid critiques of worship to be made, but they can only be made with a pure motive: And that motive is the legitimate concern to see people drawn into Christ.

I will end with a paraphrase of St. Paul's letter to the Romans [14.1-12]. In the original he is speaking of those who eat meat and those who don't. I will take some liberties and replace these words with forms of worship:

"As for the one who is one-sided in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he must worship with contemporary music, while the other person worships only in traditional ways. Let not the one who uses contemporary worship despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who uses contemporary worship, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one style of music as better than another, while another esteems all music alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who uses only one type of music, does it in honor of the Lord. The one who uses other forms of music, sings in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brothers and sisters? Or you, why do you despise your them? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God."

Nate's Ordination Nov 21 at 10am

2009-10-27T22:06:00.004-05:00

Nate and Kim Bostian cordially invite you

November 21st 2009 at 10:00 am
God willing

The Right Reverend
James Monte Stanton
Bishop of Dallas
will ordain

Nathan Louis Bostian
and
Robert Jemonde Taylor

to the Sacred Order of Priests
In Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

On Saturday, the Twenty-First of November
Two Thousand and Nine
Ten o'clock in the Morning
Saint Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church
8011 Douglas Avenue
Dallas, Texas

Your Presence and Prayers are requested.

Clergy: Cassock, Surplice, and White Stoles.

Reception following in Parish Hall
______________________________________________________
Email | Facebook | Map | Mailed Invitation | Directions | Saintmichael.org

NATE'S CORE BELIEFS AFTER A DECADE

2009-08-26T11:44:00.002-05:00

Every now and then it is fun to look at how you have changed, and how you have stayed the same, over time. In fall of 1999 I created a statement of my Core Beliefs to prepare my resume for my first applications to become a full-time youth minister. It is called "The Disciples Creed" (in retrospect that was probably a presumptuous name for it!). This week, fall of 2009, I have completed a statement of "Core Ministry Values" to prepare my curricula vitae (CV) for my final interviews for (hopeful) ordination to the Sacred order of Priests in the Episcopal Church.

In ten years I have gone from being an evangelical, charismatic social worker who is proficient in Biblical Greek, to a college and young adult minister who has made it through a mainline seminary, with experience in "high", "low", and "broad" Episcopal traditions (and limited ability in Hebrew to boot!). When it dawned on me that it has been a decade between each of my "creeds", I thought it would be fun to compare them. The one commonality between the two is that they were both designed to fit on a single page in 12 point font (so they are not exhaustive doctrinal statements of belief). Funny how an 8.5 x 11" page can fit more after a decade…

THE DISCIPLE'S CREED [Fall 1999]

I believe in the one true God Yahweh, eternal, infinite and perfect; all knowing, all present and all powerful; unchanging, loving and good. He is personal yet beyond personhood, eternally existing as one Being in three Persons- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I believe in God the Father, the sovereign King of the universe. He is Creator of all things visible and invisible, He has chosen me as His own, and out of His indescribable Love He sent His only Son to die for me.

I believe in God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, fully God yet fully human. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died to take the penalty for my sin and was physically resurrected from the dead. He ascended into Heaven and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in God the Holy Spirit, God’s very presence in my heart. He calls me to God, He counsels and compels me to live as Christ, and He gives me divine power and spiritual gifts to help others. He enables me to understand and apply God's Word and through Him I can communicate with God in prayer.

I believe the Bible is God’s living Word, divinely inspired from Genesis to Revelation, completely accurate in all it teaches, in authority over everything that claims truth, needing nothing added to it nor taken away to accomplish God’s purposes for me.

I believe I am created in God’s image to Love God and be Loved by Him. Without Him there can be no fulfillment in life, nor any goodness in me. Yet I am a sinner separated from God by my own limitations, my own ignorance of God, and my own evil choices. The just penalty for this sin is death, eternal suffering, and permanent separation from God.

I believe I am reconciled to God, and saved from sin, only by God's grace shown in Jesus Christ, through trusting in Him as my Savior, confessing Him as my Lord, repenting from sin and turning to God, and Baptism that joins me to Christ. Because of this I have forgiveness of sins, the assurance of eternal life, and the hope of the resurrection.

I believe in the one unified Church of God, the Body of Christ in the world, faithful in Confession, Baptism, and Communion. Our duty as a community, and my duty as an individual, is to worship the living God, to obey all He commands, and to share His Love by word and deed with all people. Amen.

CORE MINISTRY VALUES [Fall 2009]
I would like to articulate ten "Core Ministry Values" which reflect what I believe to be at the center of effective Christian ministry within the Anglican-Episcopal tradition. The first five are "theological" or "doctrinal" values, and the second five are "pastoral" or "practical" values.

TRINITARIAN: Effective ministry connects people with the Triune God who is the Source, Center, and Purpose of all Reality. Above all, God is Love, shared in community through all eternity by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our Triune God is the Author, Plot, and Director of History, who beckons all persons to passionate relationship with the Father, through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Spirit.

CHRISTOCENTRIC: Jesus Christ is God's Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, incarnate in a historical human life, who embodies God's Love and healing Purpose. Jesus is our at-one-ment with God through His conception, birth, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and return. His self-giving Love, exemplified in servant-leadership, is the Pattern for all effective Christian ministry.

SPIRITUAL: Just as Jesus' ministry was accomplished by the power of God's Spirit [cf. Luke 4.18-19], so also our ministry can only be accomplished by the power of the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead [cf. Acts 1.8-9]. We rely on the Spirit of God as the wildly creative Third Person of the Trinity, who indwells and infills God's people with gifts and graces to live out Christ's Love in our world.

SACRAMENTAL: Following the pattern of the Incarnation, through which God is embodied in Christ to make atonement and impart healing, Christ has given the the Church Sacred Acts through which He still reaches out to save and heal God's children. The Church makes use of these Sacred Acts- above all Baptism and Eucharist- to incorporate people, by faith, into the saving Reality of Christ.

SCRIPTURAL: As God's Word is embodied in Jesus, so also God's Word is inscribed in Canonical Scripture, which is inspired by God, to point us to God's great salvific acts that reach fulfillment in Jesus. Scripture is the authentic, non-negotiable, and necessary means through which we come to know these saving acts, and upon which God has authorized the Church to make decisions about faith and practice.

PASSIONATE: Jesus summed up the ultimate Purpose of our life in the command to "Love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength". All effective ministry flows forth from an impassioned soul set ablaze with the Love of God, through prayerful surrender to Christ, in all we think, feel, say, and do.

COMPASSIONATE: Jesus also says that our "vertical" Love for God cannot be contained, but must overflow "horizontally" as we Love our neighbors as ourselves. Ministry is the overflow of God's Love into concrete acts of mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation, service, and healing for all of God's children.

MESSY: Just as Jesus reached out to lepers, traitors, and prostitutes, so also the ministry of Christ's compassion and healing means reaching out to the lost, the last, and the least in our society. This makes ministry profoundly messy, dirty, unpredictable, problematic... And also profoundly rewarding.

MIRTHFUL: The passionate, compassionate, messy mission of Jesus is also joyful, ironic, paradoxical, and even humorous. We rejoice in our Lord God who became a human servant, who defeated cosmic powers with crucified powerlessness, who put death to death by resurrection, who rules a Kingdom where the first are last and the last are first, so we can live as creative children of our Creative Creator.

MISSIONAL: As Christians, we are called to continue Christ's mission to reach the world, and heal all persons. Teresa of Avila wisely notes "Christ has no body now on earth but ours." As C.S. Lewis has said about our common life as Christ's Body: "The Church exists for nothing else but to draw [people] into Christ, to make them little christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became Man for no other purpose."

A Litany to Pray Upon the Reading of Church Blogs

2009-06-24T22:52:00.000-05:00

Rubric: This Litany will help after reading Church blogs and news websites who capitalize and sensationalize schism and heresy in the Church for the purpose of increased readership. It is effective after reading blogs and websites of all persuasions, whether left or right, high or low. When you experience signs of nausea, mental exhaustion, blurring eyes, or demon possession after imbibing these types of blogs, simply pray this Litany. It may be helpful also to sing a hymn such as "The Church's One Foundation", "Amazing Grace", or "Lift High the Cross".

Jesus, the Lord of the Church and the Lord of History:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, that Word become flesh who speaks the Word of Life:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, the Center of the Cosmos and the Center of our Lives:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who crucified sin and put death to death upon the cross:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who defeated the power of evil by rising physically from the grave:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who is the Plot of Scripture, and the Key to the Church's teaching:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who accepted the outcast, included the unworthy, and loved the least of us:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who stood against the powers, the powerful, the privileged, and the oppressors:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who sends us on your mission to spread the Good News of yourself to all creation:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, whose mission intertwines preaching and healing, teaching and justice, word and sacrament, speech and deed:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, who gives us your Word to heal and liberate, not to argue and ignore:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we forget that you are the Point instead of our talking points:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we manipulate truth about our enemies on behalf of your Truth:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we confuse our worship of You with the You we worship:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we confuse our words about you with Your Word:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we want to be right more than we want to be servants:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we worry about events we cannot control instead of serving those you put in our life:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we put power politics before your healing power:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we confuse our kingdoms of property and income and ownership and legality and rights with your Kingdom of Light:
Have Mercy Upon Us.

Jesus, for all the times we read and rehearse the lies that help us fall into all of these idolatries, instead of falling deeper in Love with you and your people:
Have mercy upon us, heal us, and convert us once again. Amen+

Stop the Storm or Ride the Rapids?

2009-06-20T22:10:00.000-05:00

A Sermon by Nathan L. Bostian
For Year B, Proper 7, based on Mark 4:35-41

When I read stories like today's Gospel reading- stories where Jesus does something awesome that literally moves heaven and earth- I often find myself asking a question that goes something like this:

"Jesus, why don't you calm MY storms like that?"

Have you ever found yourself wondering the same thing? Have you ever found yourself drowning in trouble, knocked back and forth by waves of anger and sorrow and frustration and fear, wondering "Where is God in this?".

Is God asleep at the wheel? Does Jesus not see what I am going through here? Is he literally in the back of the boat taking a nap, leaving me to bail out buckets of my own tears?

I think this is a deep question that goes straight to the heart of our relationship with God. What is Jesus doing in the storms of our lives? This is something we all need to ask. And I want to give us permission to ask it.

And so we can answer the question of what Jesus is doing in OUR storms, let us first answer the question: "What is Jesus doing in the storm of THIS story?"

Some say that Jesus was acting out of a deep sense of compassion. He saw his friends in need, about to drown, buffeted by waves beyond their control.

And seeing that, Jesus' deep sense of compassion took over- that sense of compassion that led him to feed the hungry, and heal the sick, and forgive the sinful. It broke his heart to see his friends in trouble, so he acted to save him.

And this is important for us to know. We need to know that God has deep compassion for our deepest needs. We have to know that God's mercy is stronger than ANY of the storms we face. We must know that God's Love will eventually grant peace and tranquility to our stormy souls.

Others say that this was an object lesson for Jesus. Jesus had "stacked the deck" and knew that the storm was coming. He knew his disciples would freak out. He knew the storm would push them to understand how little trust they had, and how they needed to grow in faith.

So, Jesus went to sleep until just the right time to reveal his Divine power and glory. It was a hurricane-sized lesson to teach his disciples that he is indeed God in human flesh, and that they need to put all their trust in him as their Lord.

Indeed, for the original hearers, at the end of this Gospel story I am sure that the storyteller turned to his audience, looked them in the eyes, and spoke the question: "Who IS this that even the wind and the waves obey him?"

The implied answer is, of course, that Jesus has power over nature because he is the One that created nature. He is the Creator embodied as a creature.

And surely this too is an important lesson for us: Jesus is God in human form, and he is worthy of all our trust and faith.

Still others say that this Story is a lesson on spiritual warfare. In the preceding days and weeks, Jesus had been teaching, preaching, healing, and casting out evil powers in the Name of Love. Jesus was manifesting God's power over the forces of evil- the forces of sickness, sin, bondage, and hate- and that was making the evil powers ANGRY.

So, the forces of evil took their opportunity to STRIKE while Jesus was asleep, while the disciples were defenseless in the middle of a huge lake. Evil lashed out and struck that little boat with gusts of fear, and waves of panic.

But at just the right time, Jesus arose and demonstrated his power over evil once again. If you notice the way he rebukes the storm, and orders it to be still, it follows the pattern he uses to cast out demons.

In fact, the command "Be still!" literally means "Be muzzled!" like an angry barking dog. It is the same thing Jesus would tell the unclean spirits, right before he cast them out into the abyss.

This third interpretation also carries a powerful message for us: Jesus is our Victor. Christ is our Champion. In the end, evil and suffering do not have the last word. Jesus has the last Word. And his Word is peace.

So, which is it? Did Jesus calm the storm to save his friends, or to give them faith that he is God, or to demonstrate his victory over evil? Tell us preacher: What does this mean?

Well, to be honest with you, I think all three are a bit of the truth. And all three miss a bit of the point. I think the reason why Jesus acted here is a bit different from everything we have talked about so far.

Let's review the tape shall we? What had Jesus been doing before he got in the boat? [Wait for answers]

Yes, Jesus had been preaching and teaching and healing and casting out evil. He had been ministering to people in the hot Judean sun for days upon end. People had been coming up to him, in unceasing numbers, needing and asking and wanting and talking and debating.

Jesus was exhausted. Jesus was tired deep down into his bones. Jesus was so weary he was able to go to sleep in the back of a small, creaky fishing boat, surrounded by loud, smelly, working fishermen. He literally slept through a storm!

That storm is a regular occurrence on the Galilean sea. As the water cools down after the relentless sun has finally set, the hot air dissipates, and the cool air descends from the mountains. The friction causes squalls and storms and wind and waves to break across the sea.

There was nothing surprising here. In fact, it had happened dozens, hundreds of times to these experienced fishermen. This storm may have been particularly severe, but it was not so severe as to wake Jesus up from his well deserved sleep.

Sure, the disciples had let it get away from them a little bit. Sure, the water was flooding the boat in their negligence. But it was still not enough to wake Jesus up. It was still not beyond the realm of what experienced fishermen could expect.

And yet, as the wind and waves beat against that boat, as they bailed water out, as the gusts made the little boat yaw and twist in gut wrenching directions, you can see the look of frustration on the disciples faces as Jesus keeps on sleeping.

I can hear them griping now: "Here we are doing all the hard work. And what is Jesus doing? Nothing! We have heard his words cast demons out and cure the incurable, and now that WE are in trouble, what do we hear? Snoring!"

"Hey! Sleeping beauty! We are about to drown here! You think you could wake up long enough to DO SOMETHING?"

At the voice of his best friends, Jesus finally comes to. You know how it feels. There is that moment when you get jarred into consciousness, and for a second your dream world merges with the real world, as your dreary eyes snap to attention.

He hears their last comment "Don't you care that we are perishing?"

Can you imagine the frustration as Jesus realized that they were waking him up for a slightly-bigger-than-normal Galilee sea storm? Can you imagine the frustration of Jesus being accused of not caring?

I can almost hear Jesus thinking: "You would accuse me of not caring? It was my caring that brought me to this world! It was my caring that led me to preach and teach and heal and cast out evil!

It was my caring that led me to be here with you, in the middle of this sea, in the midst of this storm! OK, I will show you caring! I will give you what you asked for!"

Then I can see Jesus turn with that look- that look of power and frustration and compassion and exhaustion all combined into one glance- I can see him turn to the sea and scream in exasperated power "Peace! Be muzzled!"

Then it all stops. An awful, dreadful, wonderful, deep, powerful, scary peace descends upon the sea. Nothing moves. Nothing stirs. Nothing.

No wind. No waves. Dead calm. All you can hear is the breathing of the fishermen, and the drops of water falling off of the boat into the sea. Drip. Drip. Drip.

Then Jesus flashes that look to his disciples, and with deep compassion and frustration in his voice says: "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?"

Without a word, Jesus turns, lays down on his pillow, and goes back to sleep.

Everyone is afraid to talk in the eerie silence. Finally, someone whispers in the darkness "Who IS this, that even the wind and the waves obey him?"

More silence.

After a few minutes someone says: "You know, there's no wind now".

Another replies "Yep, I know."

"That means the sails won't work."

"Yep."

"That means we are going to have to row seven or eight miles to get to the other side."

"Yep."

"Well, he didn't have to get rid of ALL of the wind. He could have left us some, you know? Maybe I should wake him up again and ask him to…"

"I wouldn't do that."

"Ummm. You are probably right. It's time to row, isn't it?"

"Yep."

And so they spend the rest of the night into the early dawn rowing and rowing and rowing until they finally make landfall.

Now, I know I have taken some liberties here with the story. But, when I put myself in that boat, that's the way I imagine it.

You don't have to go there with me. But, if you do go there with me, I think we learn a couple of different things about how Jesus is at work in our storms.

The first thing I find is that our relationship with God is a real relationship, not some idealized relationship where nothing ever goes wrong, and we never get mad at each other.

You know, sometimes, we get frustrated with God. We get frustrated that we pray, and seek him, and try to do the right thing, and still, storms happen. Storms that perhaps we could have handled better. But storms that we still cannot control.

Can't God just make things easier? What is the deal?

In our relationship with God- as in ANY relationship where we deeply love another person- we are going to get frustrated. We are going to have to work through issues with God. God knows, because that is how God made us.

And God will get frustrated with us as well. After all the times, in all the many ways, in all the different circumstances, that Jesus has shown God's Love to us, we STILL have problems trusting in God's goodness.

We cannot seem to have faith in the fact that Jesus is right there with us, going through everything with us, giving us strength in ways we are not aware of, and cannot comprehend.

Our lack of trust, our failure of faith, frustrates God. My lack of trust, my failure of faith, makes Jesus mutter "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?"

But Jesus never gives up on us. As Saint Paul says in one of his letters to Timothy: "When we are faithless, Jesus is faithful, for He cannot disown Himself".

You see, no matter how frustrated we are with God, and no matter how we frustrate God, God never ever gets out of the boat with us. Sink or swim, in storms and in peace, Jesus stays with us. And he will be with us all the way to the other side.

And that leads me to the last thing I learn from this story: Often, if God acted the way that I wanted God to act, and snapped his fingers and made everything calm, it would actually make MORE work for me to learn how to be Christlike.

When Jesus calmed the storm, the disciples probably had to do hours of backbreaking rowing to get to the other side.

If they had just trusted that Jesus' very presence on the ship would protect them- If they had worked together in faith- If they had just relied on the silent strength of Jesus to get through the storm, they would have made it through to the other side without rowing.

But they didn't. And in the long run, Jesus' immediate rescue of them led to more work to get to the other side.

We are all on a journey to cross to the other side. We are on a journey in our spiritual growth, personal development, and emotional maturity. We are on a journey in our relationships, marriages, and families. We are on a journey in our careers, our successes, and even our failures.

And in that journey, we will face storms. Some of those storms will be bigger than we can face, and we will need God's power to stop them from sinking us. But some of those storms will also be tools that God uses to help us grow more Christlike.

In fact, many storms are tests of character. They are the methods God uses to show us how to love more like Jesus, to have more joy or peace or patience or compassion or faith or self-discipline.

And if we run from those storms- if we demand God to stop them, or just give up and go back to the shore- then we will find that we will have a lot more rowing than if we just faced the storm with Jesus in the first place.

In our journey with Jesus, may God give us the wisdom to know when we need Him to stop the storms, and when we need to ride the rapids.

And when we ride the rapids, may God give us Christ's silent strength and courageous faith to learn and grow and overcome.

And may we always know that Jesus is always in the boat with us, in joy and in frustration, in peace and in the storm, and he will never leave us. Amen+