Recently in Christianity Category

Two articles came my way this morning.

In a New York Times article, "The Ripped, Bikini-Clad Reverend", the Reverend Doctor Amy Richter tells of her feelings around a bikini and her entry as a female body-building competition, as well as being told she (at 5'10") is too petite to be a priest. Others said it would be "too weird" to see her at the altar if she were pregnant and wondered whether a priest should be allowed to hold hands with her husband.

What is it about the female body that so frightens the church? Is it a fear of powerful, intelligent women? Is it a fear of women's bodies themselves?

I don't think we can chalk it up merely to the mystery of women, because women, too, are among those who have objected to women in church leadership. Women know about women, and yet some still are uncomfortable with female clergy.

Nearly a century after the right of women to vote was recognized in the USA, there is still a gulf in expectations of what men and women can - and should - do. And it is not merely a divide with privileged men on one side and oppressed women on the other; both men and women buy into these expectations in varying degrees.

In the Internet Monk post "'Esau' Christianity? Douglas Wilson Needs a Bible Study," Chaplain Mike takes issue with Mark Driscoll's attack on "effeminate" male worship leaders and Douglas Wilson's attack on "effeminate" worship services. For Wilson, to be masculine is to have images of battle, judgment, and wrath.

Is violence the hallmark of masculinity? We certainly see violence in masculine-identified sports such as boxing and hockey, and images of war in American Football. But if masculinity is defined as physical conflict, what do we do with clergy, scientists, mathematicians, musicians, engineers, accountants, salesmen, clerks, letter carriers, and dozens of other men in non-combative occupations? Must musicians smash their instruments like the rock band The Who? Must our clergy call their male parishioners to physical violence against the enemy? Does this line of reasoning support events like the church shootings over the past few years?

So what would Jesus do, anyway?

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But he turned and rebuked them.
-Luke 9:51-55

So is Jesus effeminate? If so, maybe Christianity is more feminine than masculine!

In Driscoll's and Wilson's search for authentic Christianity, they have confused it with gender stereotypes. Christianity ought not mean being physically strong, aggressive, violent, are brutal. Neither, however, is maleness. Rev. Dr. Amy Richter shows that women can be strong. And, as a my female hockey-playing friends can attest, women can be aggressive. If one reads the news, one can find many examples of violent and brutal women.

Both the fear of women as clergy and the fear of effeminate male clergy are rooted in the same two falsehoods: that women are inherently less than men, and that the Holy is intrinsically male.  Neither is the case, and both falsehoods are harmful to both men and women, as well as people who do not identify at either end of this socially-constructed binary. It is also harmful to Christianity, as it deprives the body of Christ of the richness and diversity that is inherent in God's creation.
 
The Lord's prayer includes the line "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Let us not instead impose on heaven what we privilege on Earth. And, perhaps with time, we will learn not to privilege on Earth that which is not privileged in Heaven.

I just read about Harold Camping's apology on Huffington Post.

Harold Camping predicted Christ's return would come on September 6, 1994, but also allowed that it might happen in 2011. When the 1994 date passed without event, he said that he had originally thought it would be 2011 but that a calculation error led him to believe it might be 1994.

Camping's new prediction was for Christ's return and the Rapture (where the saved - living and dead - are taken up to Heaven) on May 21, 2011, after which no more souls would be saved. The end of the world would be on October 21, 2011.

When May 2011 passed without an apparent rapture, Camping believed that Christ had come invisibly in judgment, and still waited for the end in October.

It's easy to make fun of these predictions, but that's not what I'm doing today. It's also easy to point out that there have been many predictions of the end, with a rash of them starting most recently with William Miller. We could even use this as a cautionary tale, which many no doubt will do.

But instead, I want to point out some very positive things about Harold Camping, Family Radio, and the people who listened to and believed his call.

Camping believed he knew when the end would come. Whatever we think about how he arrived at this conclusion, this is what he believed. He did not merely keep this to himself, but bravely proclaimed it on a radio network that years before he and several others had started. How many of us are courageous enough to proclaim what we really believe, even in the face of scorn and ridicule? How many of us instead keep our thoughts to ourselves, or restrict our words to what's acceptable in whatever social circle we find ourselves?

There were many jokes made about those who sold everything to proclaim the end - but what did Jesus call his disciples to do? How many of us would be ready to make a radical lifestyle change to carry the message we hear to others?

Finally, when the world did not end in October, Camping did something that is very difficult for a visible leader: he apologized and spoke of "learning to walk more humble before God". This ability to take one's ego down several notches is notably lacking in many, too often including this writer.

For me, Camping and his listeners represent a three-fold challenge:

1. To proclaim what I believe, in the face of those who ridicule me for believing in God as well as those who call me a heretic;
2. To walk in faith that a message of good news is more important than personal comfort and security; and
3. To have the humility to recognize that I see as through a reflecting glass, dimly. Part of this is to do more listening than proclaiming.

Thank you, Harold Camping, for your demonstration of how to live out one's beliefs. I pray that I may have even a portion of your courage, faith, and humility.

May God richly bless you.

The other day (June 13), comedian John Fugelsang tweeted:

And that got me thinking.

We talk about the Anti-Christ, but we don't talk about the Anti-Jesus. Maybe it's important that we do.

I'm distinguishing between Christ and Jesus here for a number of reasons.

1. Christian is a familiar term; Jesusian is not.
2. Christ (also Messiah) means "Anointed One". There have been many anointed ones, many messiahs.
3. In conversations I've had, Christ seems to skew toward the Son of God, the risen Christ, while Jesus more often implies the person on earth (though there is a lot of overlap).
   

We may hear "Christ died for [my|you|our] sins." But what did Jesus live for? And what would an anti-Jesus be like?

Jesus' ministry begins prematurely at a wedding when his mother offers him as a resource in a case of emergency - the party has run out of alcohol. Despite Jesus' protest ("It is not yet my time"), Mary tells folks to do whatever Jesus says. They bring him water used for cleansing, and Jesus turns it into the wine of celebration.

So what would the anti-Jesus do?

Perhaps, despite his mother's urging to NOT do so, the anti-Jesus would turn the wine of celebration into water for ritual cleansing, wrecking the party.

What else might Anti-Jesus do?

He might make people blind, deaf, and lame. He might put demons INTO people. He might steal food from a hungry multitude and turn it into just a few loaves and fish for one.

He might do everything he could to keep from being tortured and killed.

He might tell people their sins are retained.

As I write this, some of the things I attribute to the anti-Jesus are things I recognize in me.

Jesus, you who walked among us and lived a sacrificial life
Forgive me,
And help me to stop turning wine into water.

At http://www.sandersweb.net/bible/verse.php a random Bible verse will appear.

This morning I got II Thessalonians 3:3: "3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one".

The footnote allows that "the evil one" may also be translated "evil".

Contemporary ideas about good and evil often boil down to "doing what is right" and "opposing what is right" (Axis of Evil) or pointless cruelty (in so many movies where evil is personified in a car, a man in dreams, or possession by a demon).

But this is a modern idea. Evil once meant harm (and its opposite, good, a benefit). So if we look at the scripture again, it might read:

3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against harm.

Is this true?

I have often heard people - especially Christians - testify to how God has protected them. When bad things happen, the response is sometimes "God is testing me" or "God will turn this to good". Sometimes it's the more troubling "I didn't pray hard enough", "I didn't have enough faith", or "God is punishing me for what I did".

Why would God be testing us? (Psalms 17:3) Doesn't God know our hearts? (Psalms 44:21, 139:1-4; I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:15) Some argue that we are tested so that we know our own hearts, and perhaps this is true - I know I have often learned what I really value in cases where I lost something trivial. But in cases where someone has lost a child to disease or violence, this argument is of little consolation.

Others suggest that such trials temper us as steel is tempered in heat, making us stronger. This, too, can be valid - I have learned to deal with some kinds of pain by repeated exposure. Yet we often see people struggling with hardship after hardship, without time to recover. Can a steady stream of trouble be God's way of strengthening us?

The last three responses I mentioned blame the sufferer. I find these the weakest of all responses, though they seem to strongly advocate for God's righteousness.

Most of us have heard the story of Job, who was beset by trouble as a test from God. We talk about the patience of Job, but a large portion of the book is taken up by three men - called friends - who rebuke Job for the sins he must have committed. A fourth person arrives later in the book to join in the accusation. Job protests his innocence, and God arrives late in the story to say Job was right and the other men wrong.

A large portion of the book of Ecclesiastes deals with the fact that wrongdoers often prosper and those who are righteous often suffer.

So how can we take this verse from Thessalonians seriously, knowing that God shines the sun and brings the rain on both those who do right and those who do wrong? (Matthew 5:45) Against what harm, against what evil are we protected?

One way is to say "well, it could be worse". We can imagine how much worse things would be without God's protection. But that makes God little more than a leaky umbrella - partial protection against the problems of life.

Another way is to have faith that, no matter what happens in this life, a better life in the future is safeguarded. Jesus spoke of treasure in heaven (Matthew 3:19-21; Luke 12:33, 18:22). The convenience of this viewpoint is that it is untestable in this lifetime, so no one can prove it wrong.

So how can we read this verse? How does God's protection work?

I have to admit, I have no easy answer to this one. All my answers seem either inadequate (God protects somewhat) or some form of rationalization - not much better than Job's friends.

Know that, in this life, whether you believe or not, whether you do right or not, you will have gains and you will have losses. You will have joy and you will have pain. Like the name of the tree in Eden (Genesis 3), you will know good and evil.

If you believe in the resurrection, however, you have hope for something better. And if you have a community of believers around you, you will have the support of people who love you. And, for me, that is what Christianity is about.

December 28 is one of the liturgical dates for the feast day of the innocents (others are December 27 and 29). This marks the story of Herod killing infants in order to end the threat of "the newborn king" (Jesus) as told in the second chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew:

16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men,^* he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.^{* 17}Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
¹⁸ 'A voice was heard in Ramah,
   wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
   she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.' (NRSV)

Jesus escapes this slaughter because his parents had been warned:

13 Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' ¹⁴Then Joseph^* got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, (NRSV)

But this makes me wonder: if the point of Jesus' birth is substitutionary atonement, that is:

• God dies as an infinite payment for the sins of finite humans against an infinite God, or
  
• A perfect human (Jesus) dies as payment for the sins of a perfect human (Adam), or
• Jesus dies to trick Satan into taking a blameless person, who he can't keep, and thereby rescuing all who Satan has taken, or
• any number of other schemes in which Jesus dies for our sins

then why would a perfect infant, or God in infant form, be an insufficient substitute for humanity?

Can it be only to fulfill the prophecy?

¹⁵and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I have called my son.'

Isn't prophecy merely to tell of the times (or sometimes the future), rather than for events to make prophecy true? Surely this could have been omitted from prophecy and Jesus killed with the rest of the children.

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the idea of killing an infant Jesus nor any other infants who may end up as collateral damage in Herod's insecurity. But if the point of Jesus is the crucifixion, we have no need for the life of Jesus, and especially not the ministry of Jesus.

The story of the massacre of the innocents tells us that Jesus had something to do instead of, or in addition to, dying. When we focus merely on the death, or even the death and resurrection, of Jesus, we miss the point of Jesus' life.

And if there is a point to Jesus surviving to adulthood, and to His healing the sick, and his preaching justice for the poor and oppressed, then there is probably a point to our living to adulthood as well. We may not see it - sometimes we may despair that there is such a point - but I believe there is a reason why we're here.

On this day, I will mourn those who die as infants - in first century Palestine and in the entire world in the twenty first century - due to senseless violence, hunger, and neglect. I will be grateful that I have been spared, and seek out what my ministry - my reason for surviving to adulthood - may be. I will look at the example of Jesus, who was not merely faithful in dying, but was faithful in living as well. I will examine who I serve, and make corrections as best I can.

As Christmas approaches, we see images of the infant Jesus everywhere. We hear and read "Jesus is the reason for the season". And why not? Who doesn't love a cute baby who never cries:

"The little Lord Jesus no crying he makes" - Away in a Manger

"Holy Infant so tender and mild" - Silent Night

There are some, like my friends and former classmates Tom Ryberg and David Weasley, who take issue with this idea of a silent infant, but that's an argument for another time. My point here is that we like the idea of a quiet, peaceful baby, and how much better if it's the Son of God!

We also observe Good Friday, which people like my professor and friend Ted Jennings consider the most important Holy Day in the Christian Calendar. This marks the suffering and death of Jesus. I won't go so far as to say Christians like this image (although some do seem to have an affection for the sacrifice), but it's one with which we've grown somewhat comfortable.

We do celebrate Easter, although not with the commercial fervor with which we mark the traditional birthday of Jesus. And why not? A risen Son of God is something to celebrate indeed.

Most of us don't mark the ascension of Jesus. Do you know when it is? I had to look it up. It's forty days after Easter.

What do all these ideas of Jesus have in common? They're non-threatening.

Baby Jesus doesn't speak (and, to many minds, doesn't even cry) and is lying in a manger - no worries there. Dying Jesus is nailed to a cross - He can't come after you.

The Risen Jesus does walk and talk, but doesn't hang around long. He makes a brief appearance with Mary of Magdala (and various other people depending on which Gospel you're reading) in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. He shows up on the road to Emmaus in Mark 16 and Luke 24, but doesn't stay for the whole walk. And he makes a brief dinner appearance in Luke 24 and John 20. This is a Jesus who won't bother you for long

Of course, we have the ascended Jesus now, who is safely in Heaven, far away from us.

And we do sometimes talk about Jesus' ministry, but usually we talk about the miracles.

We don't, however, want to be confronted by the social activist Jesus. We certainly don't observe a holiday for social activist Jesus.

Social activist Jesus shakes up the social order. He tells a rich young man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. That makes us anxious, because we (and I am definitely including myself here) aren't really excited about giving up our security and comfort to help others.

And when Jesus performs miracles, there's usually another aspect that's missed.

Sure, there's the turning water into wine at Cana, but that's just being a good Jewish boy and obeying his mom. And there's walking on water, and telling people where to catch fish. There's also plucking a coin out of the mouth of a fish, but that starts to look like contemporary illusionists.

But Jesus performs healing miracles, and what a lot of people miss is that these miracles usually change the status of a person in society.

Afflicted by demons? Demons driven out and person is back among society. Could we do the same for the mentally ill?

Deaf or blind? Healed and the person is back among the townspeople. Could we also remove barriers that hold back those without hearing or sight?

Unclean due to leprosy or hemorrhage? Healed and the person is touchable again. Can we reach out with human touch to people with AIDS and other diseases?

One of my favorites is the paralyzed man at Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26). The place is so packed that no one else can get in, so the man's friends cut a hole in the roof and lower him in to Jesus. Here Jesus shows what he's up to, and it's where people really get upset: Jesus tells the man "your sins are forgiven". The religious leaders are aghast - no one can forgive sin but God.

But what are we really talking about here?

Remember that Jesus was asked, regarding the man born blind, whose sin was the cause - the man's or his parents. In first century Palestine, many believed that physical issues were due to sin. But sin also kept people out of society. When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he was overruling the judgment that the man must be kept out of society because he was paralyzed.

After the leaders took such offense, Jesus healed the man's paralysis - not so much so that the man could walk (which was good) or so he could reenter society (which Jesus had already conferred on him), but because society could not get the idea that a paralyzed man belonged in society.

So what is social activist Jesus about? He threatens the status quo. He works toward dismantling  the social structures that keep people in their places. He redistributes wealth and power from those who have much to those who have little.

I want a social activist Jesus holiday. Let's pick a date and start working on the celebration.

Julie Holm has an excellent article on how going to seminary is ministry.

It was after being recommended for in care that I was asked to be on the leadership group (of 3) that supported 40 ministry teams. I was the only nominee for the vacant position. I was already serving on a number of our church's ~90 ministry teams. Churches have few people willing to take leadership roles (the 80/20 or 90/10 rule: 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people). Those few who will are expected to, because the alternative is empty leadership positions.

Financial support of seminarians is an interesting issue. The two congregations I've been with both struggle to pay their staff - one pays a full time pastor plus part time staff positions: youth minister, music minister, accompanist, facilities manager, church secretary, and cleaning staff. The other pays only a pastor (full time) and part time accompanist. There's no money left to try to help someone through seminary (despite what the MoM may say).

And why should they? It's not like they'll be the beneficiaries of the education. The seminarian will likely go pastor some other church or do some other ministry. Why give money to help someone else's ministry, especially when our own ministries are struggling?

Perhaps the fundamental problem is that, for many, the church has been relegated to an hour on Sunday morning. For some, this is clarified to "on days when none of the kids has an activity like skating or baseball Sunday morning and when we weren't out too late Saturday night" (I know a paid minister who has to skip even some large celebrations - read Christmas - due to conflicts with primary job, secondary job, and kids).

It should be no surprise that paid ministers, seminarians, and lay leaders are burning out. While 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, the other 80% of the people are expecting more.

I don't have an answer to this problem.

I'm not objecting to theological study, but I'm wondering about our various creeds and catechisms. Christianity seems to do a lot of arguing over who is right, and some of it gets pretty specific, down to what the bread is and what should be in the cup.

Churches split over theological disagreements. Sometimes believers will tell other believers "you are not Christian" over some of these matters.

I wonder how much doctrine is actually required.

For the Ethiopian eunuch, it could be explained during a chariot ride:

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over to this chariot and join it." So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.

Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth." The eunuch asked Philip, "About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"

Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?" He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

- Acts 8:28-39, NRSV

How much information could have been exchanged? It's hard to know for certain, but I don't think it was a complicated theology.

There are many question about who God is, how and why the universe was created, and at what time and in what sort of space should we worship, and these are good and interesting questions on which we can disagree as we search for answers.

But I suspect the essentials of what it mean to be Christian are fairly simple. Perhaps something we can share in a car ride.^{27282930313233343536383940}

Are you an ambassador for heaven?

OK, my readers are all over the place theologically. Some people don't believe in an afterlife, much less heaven. Many don't know for sure whether they're going to heaven (though I'm sure a few are certain). I don't think any of my readers are descended from heaven, but who knows?

For those who believe in an afterlife in paradise, and especially those who tell others about heaven:

Are you the kind of person with whom someone would like to spend eternity?

I have a tendency to be sullen, and maybe I'm not a great ambassador for heaven. It's something I'm working on. I'm not saying this is easy.

There are other types of behaviors that can be troublesome as well. Spending eternity with millions or billions of intimidating people doesn't sound much like heaven. People who point out every mistake aren't a vision of Paradise. Same for selfish people, and uncaring people, and lots of others.

So while we're here, if we believe in a hereafter, maybe we can start working on being the kind of people with whom spending time would be heavenly. Then, when we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be.

And maybe we'll help create a little heaven on earth.

I've read the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" a bunch in the past few years. For a person who is affiliated with a church, association, conference, seminary, and national settings who call claim that "God Is Still Speaking", I suppose I should be open to hearing God's still-speaking voice in those around me.

Yet the phrase "I'm not saying this; God is" seems to always follow some sort of judgment:
"You can't be both gay and Christian. I'm not saying this; God is."
"A woman cannot be a pastor. I'm not saying this; God is."
"If you do not believe the Bible is 100% true, your faith is failing. I'm not saying this; God is."

I'm coming to believe that what's really being said is "I'm not taking responsibility for this interpretation" or "don't be upset with me, be upset with God".

I have a couple of problems with this idea.

First, I wish people who had the courage to call out other on their sins would have the courage to own their interpretation of scripture.

And before anyone interjects "but I don't interpret!", yes, you do. Do you believe elders and deacons must be married (husband of one wife: I Tim 3:2, I Tim 3:12,  Titus 1:6)? Do you eschew pork, shrimp, lobster, oysters, and catfish (Lev 11, Deut 14)? If you say "it really means" or "that doesn't apply to me because", you are interpreting. Interpreting isn't inherently bad. Interpreting is inevitable. I can't even say "I like that person" without your interpreting whether I mean "I'm sexually attracted to that person", "I find that person friendly", or "I agree with that person's beliefs".

I respect the right to speak ones mind, but please admit the mind is involved. Even when just repeating what was read or what someone said is in the Bible, there is a choice to accept that understanding and to repeat it. Have the courage to say this is a choice. We are not God's puppets.

Second, and more disturbing to me, is the making of God into the unseen punisher. By using this phrase to criticize in God's name, we make God an entirely unlikable being: "I personally don't care if you do that, but God is going to punish you for that." And we wonder why atheists and agnostics are not flocking to our churches to worship God.

We all have different beliefs about who God is, how we came to be, God's relationship to us, and what our relationship to each others should be. I may strongly believe a thing, but you may just as strongly believe something different. If we're going to argue, let's not take God's name in vain while doing so.

I'm not saying this; God is.