Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • David Alan Black on Dealing with Hardship

    I posted on my company’s blog today about writing to communicate, but I didn’t cover one important aspect: Transparency. Transparency isn’t a technique or a policy. It’s an attitude and a moral commitment. It says, “I’m not going to lie about how my life is going. I’m going to let people see what is real.” A speaker, teacher, or writer will be forgiven many, many faults if he or she is transparent.

    I’d like you to read one of Dave’s posts today. If you are one of the many who have appreciated Dave’s ministry and teaching, you’ll want to read it for the update in any case. I have Dave’s permission to copy from his blog any time I want in marketing his books, but this isn’t about marketing, and I feel it should be read in the context where it is. Right now it’s at the top, but if it has moved (those who know how Dave blogs know what I’m talking about), just scroll down to Thursday, June 13 and then to 6:02 AM.

    And follow the directions … you’ll find it worthwhile.

    And do remember to pray for Dave and Becky!

     

  • A Non-Pluralistic Text in a Pluralistic Age

    The Old Testament lectionary text for today was 1 Kings 18:20-39. This text again presents a case in which those who compile the lectionary avoid difficult texts in the way they cut the reading. Verse 39 ends with “the LORD, he is God,” while verse 40 (not read) tells us that Elijah killed all the prophets of Baal.

    There are several issues that the text brings out, including the violence. It’s not an easy text to preach to a modern or post-modern audience. In looking at the text I had thought of the issue of a prophet killing hundreds of his religious opponents. That’s not the sort of thing people think of prophets doing, though they should. Elijah is hardly the only prophet to engage in violent activity. (One of the best books I know on the topic of violence in the Old Testament was written by my Old Testament professor Alden Thompson, Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? I publish it, so I may be biased, but I picked it up as a second edition, and it’s now in it’s fifth, so I may not be far off in my bias!)

    My pastor at First UMC Pensacola, Scott Grantland, chose to take the bull by the horns (couldn’t resist the cliché considering Baal imagery) and included verse 40 in the reading, for which I congratulate him. He did discuss the violence of the passage in connection with the times and also the nature of prophets. Here he addressed a common problem, that people really have a sanitized view of the character and mission of prophets. Frankly, few of us would have liked them, and if they appeared now, we’d likely be working right along with the folks who wanted them killed. They just weren’t a comforting sort of people.

    But the key question was one that didn’t really occur to me. The question was simply how does one preach this text in a pluralistic age. None of what I say here should be read as a criticism of Scott. It is, however, a criticism of the age. Various of my teachers told me there were no bad questions. I disagree. I think that getting good questions is often the most important step in getting to good answers.

    Now Scott’s solution is actually quite good, in my view. I think we should always first try to point the message of scripture, especially difficult scripture, at ourselves. He suggested we should take the text as challenging our own tendency to worship idols in this day and age. That is a good personal message to get from the passage. But I don’t think that fully addresses the question.

    The simple fact is that no matter how you dress it up, this passage is not a pluralistic passage. It says one claimed deity is God and another is not. And if we follow the trajectory of scripture, I don’t see it tending any other way. I can find texts that guide me toward less violent solutions to problems than the one used by Elijah, and I can think of God’s revelation “in many and various ways,” revelation suited to our ability to hear. I don’t want to suggest that the Old Testament people were less able to hear God than we are. They simply had different things standing in their way.

    Further, the context in the world at large is not that much different. Pluralism was quite acceptable in the ancient world. The exclusive claims of the worship of Israel went against the grain probably as much as they do the modern world.

    In other words, I would suggest the text doesn’t allow one to wiggle out that much. Now a pastor needs to address such questions, because that is what people are thinking. But I don’t think the text allows a completely comfortable answer to the question.

    There are, in my view, three major options with regard to religious exclusivity: Exclusion, Inclusion, and Pluralism. The third of these is fairly common these days. The first is the norm in conservative Christianity. I take a middle path, or rather, one that tends to gobble up parts of the others. I believe there is one God and that Jesus is unique. It is because of God’s reaching out that we can be saved and the gap between us and an infinite God can be bridged. Jesus tells us that God is a gap crossing God.

    But there is only one of him. It is possible we may err about our description of God and yet be worshiping the one true God. It is possible that we might be accepted without our own knowledge. Those are major debates. I think the best answer is that God takes care of those things and that I trust that however God takes care of them will be just. Because I believe there is real evil in the world I am not a universalist. But I am hopeful. I can be hopeful because of Jesus Christ.

    However positively stated, that is not a pluralistic position. It’s inclusive. I think there will be many in the kingdom of heaven who will say, “When did we do anything for you?” But they will be there because our God is the God who sent his Son to bridge the gap.

    How does one preach a text that is not pluralistic in a pluralistic age? It has to remain not pluralistic. It has to challenge the age. But the challenge can be filled with grace, grace that gets beyond our works and our knowledge.

     

  • My Pastor on Science and Theology

    My pastor, Dr. Wesley Wachob, comments on science and theology in his current letter to the congregation, though it is mostly quoted from John Polkinghorne. I wish more pastors would address these issues with their congregations.

     

  • The Role of Pastors

    Dave Black writes about a book on 1 & 2 Timothy and notes that Timothy was not a pastor. Historically, this is quite accurate.

    I find it interesting the things that “church folks” think must be done by a pastor. At one conference where Jody and I were invited to teach, there was a call to come forward for prayer at the last session. All the pastors, i.e. the ordained folk, were invited to come forward and pray with people. We, the unordained, were not. Was it an oversight? I didn’t feel any need to be up there with the pastors, but it is a way of thinking, and I think not a way of thinking that is helpful in building the church. All the gifts need to be used and everyone needs to be involved. Prayer is certainly not limited to ordained clergy.

    I want to quote Bob Cornwall, another one of our Energion authors, who is part of my editing work right now:

    In the course of the journey we will take together, we will consider more fully the nature of God’s church, its calling to be in the world, and the gifts of the Spirit that enable us to fulfill our call to ministry. If the phrase “call to ministry,” seems narrow and limiting, it’s important to note that while some among the people of God have been set aside by ordination for specific forms of ministry that center on leadership and teaching, all Christians have been called to share in the ministry of the Spirit, a ministry that pushes us beyond the walls and into the world, for that is where the Spirit is at work. Indeed, we’ve all been given a “manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). And when Paul speaks of the common good, it’s likely that his vision is broader than simply the faith community itself.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the stranger who enters our churches could see God’s presence in such tangible ways that their lives would be turned upside down? This can happen when we open the gates of our hearts and let the Spirit begin to move, bringing to us God’s power and gifts so that our lives will be transformed and we can become agents of God’s reconciling love. In the following pages we will see how God can accomplish this through our churches. (From the introduction to Unfettered Spirit, pp. 12-13.)

    I would go even further and question whether ordination is something limited to only one sort of ministry, but that’s for another post.

  • Honoring Those Who Do Not Fight

    It’s Memorial Day, which I enjoy. I’m a veteran, and I enjoy watching the war movies and the various patriotic shows. I’m going to annoy one set of friends by saying simply that I am proud to have served and that I would still make the same choice if I had it to do over again.

    At the same time, something occurred to me today. I have never, not once, seen conscious objectors honored in church. Even when I was still a Seventh-day Adventist, a church that has historically stood against killing in war, the people who were honored were the ones who served. That’s mildly surprising. While I am not a pacifist, I can certainly understand the arguments of those who are. More importantly, I believe it requires an act of courage for them to stand against the tide and follow their conscience rather than the will of the current “Caesar.”

    Though I believe political protest is important, I’m not referring to those who object on political grounds, and refuse to fight because a specific war is wrong. I’m referring here to those who cannot in good conscience take another life even to defend their country, or often even to defend themselves. They simply don’t believe it is, or can be, right. So they say no. I’m also not referring to those who become conscientious objectors on the tarmac as their plane is about to leave for foreign parts. I realize a crisis can bring one’s thinking to fruition, and heading off to war may be a crisis. But there’s also the simple issue of taking Caesar’s money when one doesn’t have to risk one’s life, and then backing out when it becomes dangerous. Crisis can bring out cowardice as well, after all.

    Nonetheless, whatever one’s circumstances or reasons, one’s conscience should be honored in church. And I think there are sufficient scriptural grounds for those who do take a position of Christian pacifism that we ought to honor their choice.

    I have a personal reason for bringing this up. This was a more risky position to take in World War II than it is now. My father spent World War II planting trees in Canada because he refused, on grounds of conscience, to bear arms. The option offered to conscientious objectors was either service in the medical or dental corps, or the Alternative Service Camps. He was not accepted for the medical corps, and so he did alternative service. My mother tells how she would have Hutterite patients, and how often others would treat them with disdain. She knew, however, that boys from her own Seventh-day Adventist Church were serving in similar circumstances, and would try to treat them with kindness. Little did she know at the time that her future husband was, in fact, serving in that way. (My family spanned the spectrum on this. I have an uncle who was in the Royal Canadian Engineers and was one of the first to land in Normandy on D-Day.)

    I also remember Medal of Honor recipient Desmond T. Doss,  a Seventh-day Adventist who served in the medical corps in World War II and refused to bear arms even in self-defense. I was able to meet with Mr. Doss twice when he was living quietly on Lookout Mountain. He was an extremely humble man, and very matter of fact about his accomplishments, as I’ve noticed real heroes frequently are. They were just doing what had to be done. But I think his story stands as refutation to any who claim that conscientious objectors are cowards. Besides facing the very real anger of peers and community as they take an unpopular opinion, many faced the same dangers as any soldier, and did so without any means of defense. It is one thing to face the enemy with your own weapon in hand, though the protection may be illusory. It’s another to do what Doss did, without even a sidearm.

    Here’s his Medal of Honor citation:

    Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Urasoe Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 29 April-21 May 1945. Entered service at: Lynchburg, Va. Birth: Lynchburg, Va. G.O. No.: 97, 1 November 1945. Citation: He was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying them 1 by 1 to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands. On 2 May, he exposed himself to heavy rifle and mortar fire in rescuing a wounded man 200 yards forward of the lines on the same escarpment; and 2 days later he treated 4 men who had been cut down while assaulting a strongly defended cave, advancing through a shower of grenades to within 8 yards of enemy forces in a cave’s mouth, where he dressed his comrades’ wounds before making 4 separate trips under fire to evacuate them to safety. On 5 May, he unhesitatingly braved enemy shelling and small arms fire to assist an artillery officer. He applied bandages, moved his patient to a spot that offered protection from small arms fire and, while artillery and mortar shells fell close by, painstakingly administered plasma. Later that day, when an American was severely wounded by fire from a cave, Pfc. Doss crawled to him where he had fallen 25 feet from the enemy position, rendered aid, and carried him 100 yards to safety while continually exposed to enemy fire. On 21 May, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri, he remained in exposed territory while the rest of his company took cover, fearlessly risking the chance that he would be mistaken for an infiltrating Japanese and giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade. Rather than call another aid man from cover, he cared for his own injuries and waited 5 hours before litter bearers reached him and started carrying him to cover. The trio was caught in an enemy tank attack and Pfc. Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter; and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. Awaiting the litter bearers’ return, he was again struck, this time suffering a compound fracture of 1 arm. With magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a splint and then crawled 300 yards over rough terrain to the aid station. Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.

    I must tell a brief story from my first visit to Mr. Doss. One of my aunts (I honestly can’t remember which) was visiting our family in Wildwood, GA, and wanted to see this war hero. We contacted him and were invited up for a visit. She wanted to get a picture and so he came out to the porch where there was better light. Suddenly he said something. My aunt heard, “I’m going to go call my half.” She understood this as “better half” and assumed he was going to call his wife to be with him. She said, “Oh, I was hoping you’d do that. He came back with a comb in hand straightening out his hair. What he had said was “comb my hair.” After much laughter as my aunt explained her error, he went and called his “better half” and my aunt got her pictures.

    My father did not face combat. Nonetheless, despite the Canadian government’s decision not to make him a medic, he later became a physician and served as a missionary, where he had opportunity to prove that even men with guns were not sufficient to deter him from what he believed was his duty. And even when those men with guns threatened his life and his family, he refused to bear arms.

    I think of Desmond Doss and of my father when we’re feeling patriotic, and I honor their choices as well as my own. I believe they were both men of courage and integrity. They, and those like them, deserve to be honored.

  • Explaining Tragedy (Or Not)

    There have been a large number of blog posts following John Piper’s pair of tweets regarding the tornadoes in Oklahoma. Examples include Rachel Held Evans, Chaplain Mike, and Energion author Joel Watts (From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls). (Energion is my company, so that’s my commercial plug for the day/week/etc.)

    I want to comment briefly (don’t laugh) on the idea of explaining suffering, and what comfort such explanations can bring. The answer is that explanations are inadequate, and very little comfort results from the explanation. Nonetheless, we seek explanations, and when we’ve found them, we often find it impossible to resist “helping” others with the profound knowledge we’ve gained.

    Well, I have some knowledge gained from experience, and my knowledge suggests that all this knowledge may be less helpful than we think. Am I saying that my knowledge is better than your knowledge? Not precisely. I’m saying that I’ve come to realize that both my knowledge and your knowledge about tragedies will often not be helpful at all to others. Sometimes it’s most helpful to admit our ignorance. After all, we don’t really know the why of every event.

    It took me some time to learn this. The key event was experiencing loss and living with grief together with my wife. You see, Jody and I find very different things comforting. I’ll admit to one similarity between us. We both tend to try not to bother the other with our grief. But beyond that we seek different ways of dealing with grief, we are bothered by different things and at different times, and yes, you guessed it, we explain troubling events differently.

    I see God as sovereign, but in a much different way than Reformed theologians do. I believe that God in his sovereignty has decreed freedom. God had created freedom into the universe itself. There are events that cannot be explained as having some sort of specific purpose. Those events did not result from God’s specific will other than that he willed that the creation have such freedom. Tornadoes, in my view, are the result of simple physical cause and effect. I prefer this explanation. It’s as comforting to me as an explanation is going to get. I don’t have to think about angry gods hanging out waiting to swat me (or anyone) down because of our sins or other annoying behavior.

    As a result, explanations that say “It’s God’s will” don’t do anything for me. Of course it’s God’s will. But God’s will was expressed through scientific laws and the freedom (randomness, perhaps?) that God has willed in the universe. Thinking of it as specifically God’s will, as in God rewarding or punishing the behavior of certain folks simply gets on my nerves. This is not because I think God couldn’t do that. Rather, it’s because of the truly ridiculous contortions people go through in order to explain how this particular person, building, or locale was more deserving of God’s wrath than any other. Explanations that suggest how we all deserve to be killed, but God simply chose to kill a certain group, sparing the rest of us, raise for me the specter of a fickle and unreliable God.

    My wife, on the other hand, while not being Reformed, likes to think of the good that is brought about through a tragedy. She believes God puts limits on tragedy and then works to bring out good results from the bad things that happen. This is not the same as saying that God caused a specific tragedy to happen.

    Yet for some people, the most comforting thing is to think that God is controlling everything. What this provides is the assurance that things won’t run out of control. This is why, I believe, that John Piper can think of his posts as comforting. To some people, they are comforting.

    There can be a nasty side to this when someone decides that they are safe because they are one of God’s special friends, and therefore are not subject to tragedy. Life usually gives the lie to this viewpoint, which can be tragic in many ways. Sometimes friends, like Job’s friends, decide that the once “holy” person must have offended God in some way so that tragedy struck. In this case the “it was God’s will” explanation may be used not as comfort but as a means of separating oneself from the tragedy. “If it happened to you because you committed some sin, then I am safe from it because I didn’t commit that sin,” is the thought.

    But I think that most people simply present an explanation that makes sense to them, and that comforts them, in the thought it will comfort others. If you’re attempting to take that approach, think carefully. Your best explanation may be totally unhelpful. Listen, be prepared to help, and let people come up with their own explanations.

  • Reading the New Testament in Stereotypes

    It was a small Bible study in a church I had joined recently, and we were reading from the gospels. I was kind of trying to keep quiet and get to know people before I made too many comments. But after our gospel reading, people started to discuss it, or mostly to discuss the people in it.

    The disciples were pretty stupid. How could they possibly have missed the message so many times? The Pharisees were hypocrites, who obviously knew perfectly well that Jesus was right about everything and should have just given in immediately. Others didn’t do much better.

    “Would we really do that much better?” I asked. I wasn’t quite sure how to make my point. Frankly, given the situation, I doubted (and still doubt) that we would “get” what Jesus was up to any more quickly. As for the Pharisees, I am much more like them than probably any other group in history other than my own. I’m talking about studying the Bible, trying to apply it, falling to the very human tendency to criticize and apply what we learn in scripture to everyone else before we apply it to ourselves. Yes, it’s true. I teach that we should endeavor to apply everything we learn to our own lives first and then share and witness more than correct, and condemn not at all. But the hypocrite in me sometimes has me doing what I would not.

    Oh wretched man that I am, or, well, human man that I am, and that’s wretched enough and great enough for any of us.

    I’d like to suggest that we try to read the New Testament (and the whole Bible) in more sympathetic (or empathetic) categories. To see ourselves in the failings of those who are described in its pages, and in turn to see ourselves in Christ in the victories and successes.

    In the meantime, if you want to know what got me started this morning, read this post by Scot McKnight about the Pharisees. He provides a good deal of historical information that might help you get a bit more empathetic on the subject, and in turn may help you read the Bible in a more participatory* way.


    *I use “participatory” here in the same sense as in the Participatory Study Series, which is participating in the story of scripture, seeing yourself as part of it, and learning to extend it.

  • Renewing (Mainline) Congregations – Again

    I want to call attention to a post I read this morning, Can a Dying Church Find Life? Six Radical Steps to “Yes” (HT: Allan Bevere).

    Then I want to call attention again to a series of responses to a set of interview questions given by some Energion Publications authors on renewing mainline congregations. The two are coming from different directions. The interviews assume a leader who is determined to find renewal, while the article above does not. It indicates that one of the needs is a determined church leader. I don’t think this leader would have to be the pastor, though I suspect there would be problems if the pastor isn’t on board.

    In any case, I think these links are worth checking out.

  • Link: The Gospel and Social Justice

    T. E. Hanna (discovered via Facebook) has a guest post by Dana Bruxvoort titled Why the Gospel Without Justice Isn’t the Gospel. While the title caught my attention, phrases like “filling in the holes in my gospel” and “doing nothing was no longer an option.”

    Missions not optional? Let’s spread that idea far and wide!

     

  • Quote of the Day: Dan R. Dick on Ecumenically Challenged

    The fact is, we want to be bigger, and we really can’t be bothered with the health and well-being of other denominations — after all, their gain is our loss, right?

    He tells about how he got in trouble with his trustees … and fellow pastors. And I love it! Read the whole thing.