An Offensive Sermon

Bansky's family picnic: As offensive as Jesus' meals, for the opposite reasons.

For Third Advent, Year A. Based on Luke 1:46-55 (the Magnificat), James 5:7-10, and Matthew 11:2-11.

And Jesus said "Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me." To which someone in the crowd immediately mumbled under their breath "Who does this guy think he is anyway? The Son of God?"

Today I want to deliver an offensive sermon. No, not in the sense that I want to offend you. I don't want to offend anyone here. And if you are offended by what I say today, please, blame it on Fr. Chuck. But, instead of being offensive myself, I want to talk about the kinds of things that offend US, and what on earth people could possibly find offensive about JESUS.

The Golden Rule across cultures

Ummm. Not THAT Golden Rule.

The following are some lecture notes for a discussion on "The Golden Rule" as Jesus presents it in the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7). In this lecture, I am trying to connect the ethics of Jesus with the central concerns of other world cultures:

Most cultures and religions have ethical systems that, at their core, are based on an idea of equality and reciprocity. This idea was first delivered to me in earnest by CS Lewis in his little book "The Abolition of Man". In the appendix, Lewis put a cross cultural sampling of moral teachings he labelled "The Tao" (a Chinese word meaning "The Way" or more appropriately "The Way to be Good or Moral"). The central section of "The Tao" for me was what Lewis calls "The Law of Reciprocity", which is often better known as "The Golden Rule".

We greet God in the Face of "The Other"

Over the past couple of years I have been thinking about how to integrate some of the major themes of postmodern ethical theory into a genuinely Trinitarian, Incarnational worldview. Although I know whole forests of trees have been cut down to make books which (over)analyze these concepts, I would like to put forward some short and sweet recommendations about how to integrate these concepts into a Classically Christian spirituality.

My meditation will center around concepts of welcome, embrace, inclusion, tolerance, difference, "other"-ness (le autre), and "the face of the other" as popularized by thinkers such as Jacques Derrida, Jack Caputo, and Emmanuel Lévinas, and expanded and critiqued by theorists like Slavoj Žižek.

On Elisha, Bears and Bullying

In light of recent tragedies, I wanted to comment once again on the issue of violence in the Bible. On the whole, I tend to view Biblical violence, done in the Name of God, as a series of object lessons about how the God revealed in Jesus Christ does NOT want God's Name to be used, and how systemic violence can rot the core out of a society.

First of all, there are episodes of horrendous violence done in God's Name. Think of Joshua and the Israelites wiping out entire cities in Canaan, killing every man, woman, child, and animal for God. When we read these stories and then look telescopically across the trajectory of Scripture, I think we must ask ourselves: Do these violent actions create the society of justice, compassion, and peace that God repeatedly asks for?

To charge someone with blasphemy you must first hate God yourself

One of the members of Pussy Riot gave a very powerful final statement, that itself is worthy of meditation and prayer. See the full transcript here:

Pussy Riot Members Sentenced to 2 Years for Offending Russian Orthodox Church | Religion Dispatches

It makes me wonder: In thinking about the testimony of the Bible - stories of Jesus, Stephen, Paul - and the testimony of history - crusades, inquisitions, jihads, witch trials - do we ever find the charge of blasphemy used by someone who is a friend of God? Rather, is it not always and every time that when someone levels the charge of blasphemy, we find that in fact it is the accuser who hates God and who uses God as a tool to oppress, enslave, and control others?

Conservatively Progressive, Radically Traditional and Liberally Creedal

The "dancing saints" icon at St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church is a great visual example of Creedal theology combined with a radical social vision.

This week Ross Douthat at the NY Times wrote an article asking whether Liberal Christianity can be saved. His article basically tied radical social decisions (such as ordination of transgender persons and blessings of gay and lesbian unions) to doctrinal sellout (such as liberals supposedly being syncretist at worst, and bland at best). And he then tied doctrinal sellout with numerical decline, in such a way that numerical decline is the primary indicator of whether a church body is being unfaithful to Jesus Christ by accommodating to culture (while, conversely, numerical increase is the primary indicator of faithfulness).

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

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.

A Politics of Virtue

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".

Is Every Single Person a Child of God?

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

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.

INTOLERANT ABOUT HOSPITALITY

A Sermon For Year C Proper 17
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Hebrews 13:1-8 and Luke 14:1-14

SERMON: Did you ever watch cartoons on TV when you were a kid? How about last night on cartoon network?

I loved cartoons. Every afternoon in third and fourth grade I would race home after school to watch my all-time favorite cartoon series: G.I. Joe- a REAL American Hero!

Like most kids growing up in Arkansas at the time, I loved guns, tanks, bombs, and explosions. And G.I. Joe supplied that yearning with an endless conflict between "the good guys", and bland, non-descript, faceless enemy called Cobra.

They were always locked in a properly-neutered, politically-correct, no-one-ever-really-dies war which never seemed to end… but which did seem to spawn the production of really cool gadgets and playsets, which my dad would pay hundreds of dollars to buy.

Looking back, it was kind of the macho equivalent of "Barbie Dolls".

A Short Rant Before Bed

I've had a long, good day. It began with a 9am appointment, and ended at 11pm after a prayer vigil for Darfur at SMU. Along the way I went to class twice, read a book, did lots of communication on the phone and via email, and met with a very cool Christian artist. A 14 hour day. Talked to several folks about Jesus. Read some good stuff about Jesus, and the history of His people. Oh yeah, I snuck in dinner with my beautiful bride and wonderful daughter too.

I'm not griping about how long my day was (or how they all seem to be that long). I was made for this. I love it.

I just want some help.

Tonight at the prayer rally for Darfur, I was surprised at the number of people who WEREN'T there. Every organization from the Campus Ministries Council was invited. That's about 25 groups currently. About 10 groups came.

And none of our Evangelical groups were there… unless we count our Christian Sorority as an Evangelical group.

"Evangelical" has apparently been left behind to follow "Antichrist"

2018 Note: After re-reading this post, I agree with the substance of it for the most part. But I do come off here as a bit of a condescending twit. So, read at your own risk. I leave it up as a monument to personal growth.

On July 05 2006 I posted a critique of the anti-Christian video game (made by Evangelical Christians) called "Left Behind" (in honor of the novel series of the same name). Today, I received a comment from a blogger named "SJR" who claims to work for Left Behind video games. I want to post his comment, my response to his comment, and my original article:

--------------------------------------
SJR's complete comment (with the points I want to comment on numbered in brackets []):

This statement is posted from an employee of Left Behind Games on behalf of Troy Lyndon, our Chief Executive Officer.

There has been in incredible amount of MISINFORMATION published in the media and in online blogs here and elsewhere.

Pacifist Christians and other groups are taking the game material out of context to support their own causes [1]. There is NO “killing in the name of God” and NO “convert or die” [2]. There are NO “negative portrayals of Muslims” and there are NO “points for killing” [3].

Please play the game demo for yourself (to at least level 5 of 40) to get an accurate perspective [4], or listen to what CREDIBLE unbiased experts are saying [5] after reviewing the game at www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/controversy.htm

Then, we’d love to hear your feedback as an informed player. The reality is that we’re receiving reports everyday of how this game is positively affecting lives by all who play it [6].

Thank you for taking the time to be a responsible blogger [7].
--------------------------------------

My response to SJR:

WWGD: What Would Gramsci Do?

I read an article the other day written decrying how atheist secularism has invaded our University systems and turned them into Godless cesspools of rotting postmodernity. It ponted out how many Universities (even Religious ones!) have a systematic method of "catechesis" designed to make the student body seriously question, if not deny, the traditional values espoused by most traditional religions. And, judging from my experience at six Universities, they were largely right about the method, even if they were wrong about the extent (there are still lots of faithful academics out there who have not bowed their knees to the Baals of secular culture). And what is supposed to be the reaction of "good Christian" parents and children? Hide! Vacate secular universities for home schools and "safe" Bible colleges. But is that the right response for people who believe that Jesus came to redeem and reconcile ALL creation to the Father?

Should the name Evangelical be "left behind"?

2020 UPDATE: I still agree with most of the values and ideals which underlie this 2005 "essay" (which is more of a rant). But I think the way I presented these values here is very ineffective. It is a great example of how irony and sarcasm can work very poorly in print. I leave it up as a reminder of where I was at in 2005 and how I can write better.

I write to you as a bonafide, card-carrying evangelical. I was "born again" in 1992 by receiving a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ, after which my lifestyle and worldview was radically changed. I was discipled through a minister getting his degree at Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as through Campus Crusade. My evangelical credentials are all in good order.

On occasion, one of evangelicalism's guiding lights will say or do something that makes me cringe to associate myself with the "E" word. Whether it is Pat Robertson's crazy pronouncements, Falwell's animated antics, a half-baked Baptist boycott, or our general drift toward political supremacy and cultural triumphalism... there is always something out there I feel I have to apologize to both God and man for by taking up the name evangelical.

But what do you do when one of the media stars of evangelicalism does something so patently against the gospel that to be associated in the same camp is to be associated with something demonstrably less-than-Christian, or even anti-Christian?

On Tolerance, Scripture, Historicity, and Truth

A friend wrote this to me tonight:

Great program on Terry Gross’s Fresh Air segment on NPR today.  The guest was Bart Urman (sp?), author of Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, the early followers of Jesus and New Testament and Gnostic Gospels historian and authority at University of North Carolina.  He spoke a lot about The Da Vince Code as well as the Gospel of Judas and other relatively recently discovered Christian writings... At the very end of the program he had a great couple of statements about the importance of today’s Christian realizing the diversity that even the early Christian church exemplified.  He sounded mightily Episcopalian, though I’m wary of religious academics tenured at state universities.  

Thanks!  Actually, I heard 5 minutes of it while going to Sr Hi Bible Study tonight, and one of the students also heard it.  He brought it up at Bible Study.  So, we talked about aspects of it tonight.  Must've been something God wanted me to be aware of and talk about!  I also heard the tolerance message at the end of it as well... And it brings me to a subject I have been wanting to write about for a while, so I am going to write about it if you don’t mind ;-)

My feelings about the tolerance part is paradoxical. I have just enough conservative Evangelical in me (as well as open-minded liberal), that I am both wary of, and sympathetic to, such calls for tolerance. Going to a liberal mainline seminary has taught me that for many future pastors and academics the core of Christianity is not Christ and his work, but a politically correct tolerance of anyone, as long as they have no firm opinions on anything. As soon as someone has firm opinions and is willing to identify something as "right" and something as "wrong", they are labeled as a "fundy" and excluded from "polite" conversation.  In such a climate a theological conservative has to know the presuppositions and arguments better than anyone else to even get a hearing.

Theologically Correct Bible Songs (part 1)

Part of a series dedicated to revealing the concrete effects of imbalanced theologies by re-writing hymns and children's songs as if the theology were actually true.  The songs are somewhat funny, obviously badly warped, and certainly nothing we would want to teach our kids or congregations.  And yet, I think they faithfully carry out the explicit logical conclusions of certain types of theology.  If the theologies are correct, and something that people can actually believe, then WHY NOT sing these songs?  But, if the songs are horrendous, how can we keep believing the theology that underlies them (even if in a kinder, gentler, more nuanced version)?

Enough logic.  On to the songs...

An Open Letter to the Republican National Committee

2018 Note: There are several things about this blog I really do not agree with now. Notably, I have long since evolved to embrace marriage equality, and see same sex marriages as equally and fully families that should be strengthened and embraced. I leave this up on blog as a monument to personal growth and change over time. 

I received an email on February 13th, 2006 from the Republican National Committee asking for feedback about the GOP.  Not letting any opportunity slip to tell someone what I think, I penned the following letter:

Government and Religion in God's Plan

A Short Theology of Government, Defense, and the use of force to protect the innocent

Government and Religion

In all ages, God's family must co-exist with those who choose to stay outside of the family. Therefore, God has set two complimentary forces at work in society: government (to govern all people) and religion (to govern God's family). Both government and religion have similar goals: to bring community and peace out of chaos and destruction. Yet, they use different tools to accomplish this. Government uses the police and physical force to control people's actions. Religion uses persuasion and the force of conscience to control people's actions. Also, they have different areas of oversight. God made government to use justice to protect people and property from crime and physical violence. God made religion to protect people from immorality and evil that is not physically abusive, and help them do good instead. For example, government protects people from the physical crimes of murder and theft by legal force.

Religion, on the other hand, persuades people away from hatred and jealousy that cause these crimes, and urges them toward Love. Likewise, it is the Government's responsibility to make sure that society is safe enough for people to pursue Love, life, and purpose. It is Religion's responsibility to lead people to Love, life, and purpose in Christ. Because of this, it is the role of religion to help the needy through charity, because only religion can truly give purpose and love with charity.