the death of jesus

Consistent with one way of living, here's what really should have happened:

If Joseph was a faithful, obedient believer and follower of God's word, this would have been a logical, reasonable, and righteous thing for him to do.

See Deuteronomy 22:22-23 and Leviticus 20:10.

Yet he did not.

In a dream, he heard a voice claiming to be an angel telling him:

“Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20-21 NIV)

Joseph believed this voice and did what it said. No record of him going to talk to the rabbi about it, or asking other believers for confirmation that this was indeed God's will. And there would have been no reason to listen to Mary when she told him about her experience with an angel, as she was a woman and in that culture, her words did not count. However, he listened and believed despite many reasons not to.

And so at Easter, we remember Jesus' death at age 33 rather than as an unborn child.

---

What do you think? Did Joseph do the right thing? What choices did he have? How do you feel about the one he made? How would you feel if someone today made a similar choice where instead of following what the Bible clearly said, they heard God speak to them?

* Thanks to a good friend for the idea of the "Joseph's options" cartoon, which then inspired the top cartoon on "the death of jesus."

[oppositional religious identity]

It's been said that religion is the cause of all violence. However, in his recent book, Brian McLaren gives a more nuanced perspective on this:

The tensions between our conflicted religions arise not from our differences, but from one thing we all hold in common: an oppositional religious identity that derives strength from hostility.

He then goes on to discuss how when a social group (think church or a group of Christians) feels threatened, they suspend the normal rules and daily activities, diverting "attention and energy to hostility" and then focusing that hostility "on a target,—real or imagined, legitimate or manufactured, among them (as a classic enemy) or among us (as an internal scapegoat)."

What he later adds to this, is that this is often done not out of hatred or antagonism but rather, from a "loving defensiveness". In other words, people feel that the values and beliefs they hold and cherish are under attack, and they act to defend these values. This can ironically happen in ways that result in behaviour which normally would be considered antithetical to the person or group's beliefs, but considered necessary for their protection.

no book burning this time

This past week, Rob Bell said the following at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco:

"I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

And he has also endorsed a book called Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay Christian’s Pilgrimage in Search of God in America. From the back of the dust jacket:

“In telling these stories–chief among them his own–Jeff has done an extraordinary thing, showing us all to the God who is big enough and loving enough and true enough to meet all of us exactly where we’re at. This book is moving, inspiring, and much needed.” (Rob Bell, author of What We Talk About When We Talk About God and Love Wins)

Quite astounding, but not surprising. And the reactions cover the full range from agreement and delight to disagreement and rejection (with some "kicking him out of evangelicalism" yet again). Rob Bell is the first high profile North American evangelical leader to be public about such views (Britain's Steven Chalke came out with a similar perspective earlier this year).

---

Hear Rob Bell speak for himself

Read more about what Bell said at Grace Cathedral, including his comments about a dying subculture: Greg Carey at HuffPo

About the cartoon: simply poking fun at the idea of being "progressive" because of recycling paper instead of burning it while at the same time suppressing differences and not being willing to engage in dialogue on important matters.

gospel according to bell

This cartoon isn't really about Rob Bell, though it takes elements of what he said and shows how some members of the public might perceive his message.

It's more about the illogical ways that people think. For example, from what he is saying, it would seem that the man in the picture has or had the idea that even though hell does not exist, that homosexuals are still going there. Of course, this is not really logical -- if hell doesn't exist, no one can go there. But old prejudices die hard, as does black and white thinking and "us and them" thinking.

For example, in response to Rob Bell's recent comments about same-sex marriage, one reader made this comment:

"You're either Christian or gay. Can't be both." Hmm. This would be contradicted by the many LGBT people who are vibrant followers of Jesus.

"Homosexuals aren't going to heaven." Really? I thought Jesus opened the way for all to enter....

"You cannot change God's mind." What buzzbird is really saying here, is that they are set in their ways and won't change their mind. We already know that God "changes his mind" (example).

"You cannot change the bible truths." One thing is for sure, that we often can't agree on what those truths are and which apply today or not.

What do you think?

[Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed...]

Brian D. McLaren has written an excellent book Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World, which I highly recommend.

From the Amazon.ca review:

When four religious leaders walk across the road, it's not the beginning of a joke. It's the start of one of the most important conversations in today's world.

Can you be a committed Christian without having to condemn or convert people of other faiths? Is it possible to affirm other religious traditions without watering down your own?

In his most important book yet, widely acclaimed author and speaker Brian McLaren proposes a new faith alternative, one built on "benevolence and solidarity rather than rivalry and hostility." This way of being Christian is strong but doesn't strong-arm anyone, going beyond mere tolerance to vigorous hospitality toward, interest in, and collaboration with the other.

Blending history, narrative, and brilliant insight, McLaren shows readers step-by-step how to reclaim this strong-benevolent faith, challenging us to stop creating barriers in the name of God and learn how affirming other religions can strengthen our commitment to our own. And in doing so, he invites Christians to become more Christ-like than ever before.

I will be quoting occasionally from this book in future posts. Buy it or borrow it from your local library!

Info: Brian D. McLaren (New York, Jericho Books: 2012)

alpha to omega

Jesus is for everyone. It doesn't matter who you are. He loves you and his arms are open to you.

a brutal unity: personal case study

This post follows up on a previous post on “a brutal unity explored”. I highly recommend that you read it first, as it provides the conceptual background for understanding this case study. The original post talked about brutal unity as an individual might apply it to their situation in a church or community context. This post takes a specific conflict at a real church and provides extensive discussion of how one individual (the author) is applying the concept of brutal unity to the situation, as well as some discussion of how the church in question might apply the concept within the larger denominational context.

the church

St. Pea’s Church, located in a large Canadian city, is part of a mainline denomination. While the whole denomination believes in the gospel and in evangelism, St. Pea’s specifically considers itself evangelical and Bible-believing. The leadership is conservative in its views and holds to a traditional view of marriage. While there is a range of views and perspectives on sexuality among the parishioners, the leadership is not affirming of LGBT people.

the church member

My family and I have been attending this church for the past eight years. I hold a more progressive view and believe in the true equality of LGBT people in the body of Christ. The rest of my family has a range of views which are left of center and would be considered gay-friendly. This belief, or standard, is at variance with that of the leadership and many of the parishioners. I can live with this because the community is good and because conservative views regarding marriage are not a focus of the church. Thus, I let my “standards be suffered” for the sake of the church community. This does not mean that I ignore, give up or deny what I believe. It means that I put these beliefs to the side in order to be in relationship with others who may not share my views on sexuality, but with whom I have much in common as we follow Jesus together.

the synod resolution and decision

Along with the other parishes in this geographical area, St. Pea’s is part of and comes under the authority of the diocese. In the early fall of 2012, the diocese held its synod (assembly), at which Resolution G-3 was presented:

Blessing Same-Gender Committed Unions: That Synod request the Bishop to grant permission to any clergy who may wish to offer prayers of blessing for civilly married same-gender relationships.

brutal unity of the wrong sort

For an exploration of a better kind of "brutal unity," check out my article on a brutal unity explored.

a brutal unity explored

introduction

In this post I want to explore the concept of “brutal unity”, which I came across in Matthew Shedden’s brief review of Ephraim Radner’s A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church. In his book, Radner writes:

“In this life that is God’s, any Anglican—or Roman Catholic or Methodist or Lutheran—can be a Pentecostal; any Catholic Protestant can be an evangelical Protestant; any member of one church can be a member of another that has separated from the first; any Roman Catholic can be a Protestant. Any Christian can do this not because standards of truth have been cast away but because the standards can be suffered, in their very contradiction by the place where he or she will go with Jesus.” (p. 447, italics added)

unpacking the concept of “the standards can be suffered”

First, what is meant by standards? The term “standards” is used to refer to a range of things believed at a theological or philosophical level: doctrines, statements of faith, liturgical confessions, dogma, religious beliefs, and so on. Moral standards would be included, but as used here, the term does not refer to facts and figures.

Secondly, the term “can be suffered” is not about denying, ignoring or giving up one's standards. Instead, it is about giving the standards second place, laying them down for the sake of one's calling and the community, emptying oneself of the need to hold tightly and insistently to standards as if they are our salvation when they are not. Our salvation is in Jesus Christ who "made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Philippians 2:5-8). Does this mean we change our beliefs or decide that they are irrelevant? No. But we put them second to the greater calling we have, for unity and the community. Because Radner’s use of the word “suffered” is not common, our discussion here will often substitute terms such as “set aside”, “put second”, and so on.

Third, “the place where he or she will go with Jesus” will be understood here as either a calling to a particular church or community, or general involvement with a particular church or community, and will often be referred to as “church” or “community” for the sake of simplicity.

post-baptism blues

Isn't that the question many of us are asking ourselves, with our own particulars incorporated in it? Our difference is not always outwardly noticeable, and we may even attend a church regularly, but we still ask ourselves, "Is there a church which will accept someone like me?"

---

p.s. The answer is yes, while they may be hard to find, there are churches who will accept and embrace you just as you are.


This cartoon is based on the Biblical account of Philip meeting the Ethiopian eunuch, as told in Acts 8:26-40. The eunuch was reading from Isaiah chapter 53. Only a few chapters later, Isaiah has these verses, and one might reasonably expect that the eunuch has also read this:

56 This is what the Lord says:

“Maintain justice
    and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
    and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
2 Blessed is the one who does this—
    the person who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
    and keeps their hands from doing any evil.”
3 Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
    “The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let no eunuch complain,
    “I am only a dry tree.”
4 For this is what the Lord says:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
    who choose what pleases me
    and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
    a memorial and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
    that will endure forever.

(Isaiah 56:1-5, NIV)

What might this have communicated to him? Especially at a time when (as is still often the case today) religious groups put great importance on purity and boundaries, he finds foreigners and eunuchs mentioned positively in the Book of Isaiah -- and he is both!

---

Richard Beck has some interesting insights into the Bible and eunuchs.

[hospitality as subversive and countercultural]

Christine Pohl, in Making Room, says this about hospitality:

Although we often think of hospitality as a tame and pleasant practice, Christian hospitality has always had a subversive, countercultural dimension. “Hospitality is resistance,” as one person from the Catholic Worker observed. Especially when the larger society disregards or dishonors certain persons, small acts of respect and welcome are potent far beyond themselves. They point to a different system of valuing and an alternate model of relationships.

Today, some of the most complex political and ethical tensions center around recognizing or treating people as equals. Recognition involves respecting the dignity and equal worth of every person and valuing their contributions, or at least their potential contributions, to the larger community. Struggles over recognition also encompass questions about what it means to value distinctive cultural traditions, especially when a particular tradition has been tied to social disadvantage and exclusion. Central to discussions of recognition and dignity are concerns about basic human rights and identity.

For much of church history, Christians addressed concerns about recognition and human dignity within their discussions and practices of hospitality. Especially in relation to strangers, hospitality was a basic category for dealing with the importance of transcending social differences and breaking social boundaries that excluded certain categories or kinds of people. Hospitality provided a context for recognizing the worth of persons who seemed to have little when assessed by worldly standards.

Because the practice of hospitality is so significant in establishing and reinforcing social relationships and moral bonds, we notice its more subversive character only when socially undervalued persons are welcomed. In contrast to a more tame hospitality that welcomes persons already well situated in the community, hospitality that welcomes “the least” and recognizes their equal value can be an act of resistance and defiance, a challenge to the values and expectations of the larger community.

People view hospitality as quaint and tame partly because they do not understand the power of recognition. When a person who is not valued by society is received by a socially respected person or group as a human being with dignity and worth, small transformations occur. The person’s self-assessment, so often tied to societal assessment, is enhanced. Because such actions are countercultural, they are a witness to the larger community, which is then challenged to reassess its standards and methods of valuing. Many persons who are not valued by the larger community are essentially invisible to it. When people are socially invisible, their needs and concerns are not acknowledged and no one even notices the injustices they suffer. Hospitality can begin a journey toward visibility and respect.

From Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition

(Christine D. Pohl, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 61-62

darts

It's not that simple or random, is it? But note two things: it's names of minority groups that are put on the dartboard, and the clerics' assumption that they have the right to ostracize....

word search

It may surprise some of you who attend churches where the creeds are said as part of the liturgy, that a key word is missing:

Nothing is said about "God so loved the world," or "love your neighbour as yourself" or anything else related to love. Pretty sad, eh? And perhaps contributing to the difficulty some churchgoers have loving others....

Time for a rewrite?

---

Hugh and friends at Love Wins, Raleigh, NC, add the following to the regular creed:
"Lived obediently to God. Lived and taught peace, love, and forgiveness. Healed the sick, cast out demons, forgave sins, raised the dead, confounded the powers that be. "

---

From the Maasai prayer book:

We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created Man and wanted Man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the Earth. We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know Him in the light. God promised in the book of His word, the Bible, that He would save the world and all the nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good His promise by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left His home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, He rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

We believe that all our sins are forgiven through Him. All who have faith in Him must be sorry for their sins, be baptised in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love and share the bread together in love, to announce the Good News to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for Him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.

The Maasai Creed was composed in 1960 by the Maasai people of East Africa in collaboration with missionaries from the Congregation of the Holy Ghost. The creed attempts to express the essentials of the Christian faith within the Maasai culture.

Updated July 2, 2013

[the story of Le Chambon]

Christine Pohl, in Making Room, tells the story of the village of Chambon:

It is critical to have the freedom to define a Christian identity and Christian community with distinctive beliefs and practices. But, to welcome strangers into a distinctly Christian environment without coercing them into conformity requires that their basic well-being not be dependent on sharing certain commitments. When basic well-being is under attack by larger society, Christians have a responsibility to welcome endangered persons into their lives, churches, and communities.

The story of the village of Le Chambon is a powerful example of the meaning of difference in the practice of hospitality. This small community of French Protestants rescued Jews during World War II. Opening their homes, schools, and church to strangers with quiet, steady hospitality, they made Le Chambon the safest place in Europe for Jews. They acknowledged and valued the Jewish identity of their guests and understood their need for protection. Defining as neighbor anyone who dearly needed help, they saved the lives of thousands of Jews. When the police asked the pastor of the community to turn in the Jews, André Trocmé responded, “We do not know what a Jew is. We know only men.” His response is profoundly illuminating. When, by acknowledging difference, we only endanger, we must only acknowledge our common human identity.

...

Because hospitality is a way of life, it must be cultivated over a lifetime. “Hospitality is one of those things that has to be constantly practiced or it won’t be there for the rare occasion.” We do not become good at hospitality in an instant; we learn it in small increments of daily faithfulness.

luther

For all of us who associate Martin Luther with the Reformation and nailing a lengthy thesis onto a church door, surprise!

From two separate books which I've been reading lately, I've learned that Luther was vehemently anti-Semitic. Here are some examples directly from Luther's writings (translated):

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them… Moses… would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed… Instead, they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn…
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings… be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life…"

source and more

Pretty scary stuff from someone who is revered in Protestant circles and who has denominations named after him.

In this context, how do we understand this verse that says, "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." (I John 4:20)?

And what are those Christians going to do, who will not even play certain kinds of classical music because the composer lived an immoral life? To be consistent, they'd have to jettison Luther's ideas....

Perhaps it is best if I start with myself, to see where I am hating a brother or sister, or where I am not loving someone as God loves them... and to see where things I do are not pleasing to God....

---

Further reading: Rachel Held Evans on "The day I found out Martin Luther hated Jews"

slippery slope (2)

Slippery slopes seem to be of much concern in the Christian community. Here I'm giving the usual idea a twist... suggesting that it's a problem for Christians because they would subsequently need to learn how to love more people.

For the record, I do believe that as the body of Christ we need to figure out how to love people who are sex offenders. No idea how to do this, but they are possibly the least of the least of these...

What do you think? Whom have you found it a challenge to love?

avoidable tragedy

This is avoidable.

That doesn't mean it will be avoided.

It really depends on all who attend St. Peas committing to following Jesus, loving one another, majoring on the mission statement of "love God and love your neighbour," loving others, being humble in our approach to Scripture, loving those who are not like me, valuing people over my own beliefs, striving to live in peace with one another, following Jesus....

Is this possible? Can we who follow Jesus live into the reality of whom he called us to be? Or perhaps I'm just naive....

---

This "extraordinary post" is in response to an "extraordinary meeting" which I unfortunately could not attend, at my real-life church, a meeting which was held "in camera" which means that no one is talking about it, a church which has a lot of good things going for it but is getting upset about the broader church denomination voting in favour of the option of same-sex blessings.

[quotes from Pohl]

I recently read Christine D. Pohl's book, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, and will be quoting from it in future posts as it ties in well with the themes of this site. Here's a summary of the book:

"Although hospitality was central to Christian identity and practice in earlier centuries, our generation knows little about its life-giving character. Over the past three hundred years, understandings of hospitality have shrunk to entertainment at home and to the hospitality industry's provision of service through hotels and restaurants. But for most of the history of the church, hospitality was central to the gospel and a crucial practical expression of care, relationship, and respect.This penetrating new work by Christine Pohl revisits the Christian foundations of welcoming strangers and explores the necessity, difficulty, and blessing of hospitality today. The book offers an original argument that traces the eclipse of this significant Christian practice, showing the initial centrality of hospitality and the importance of recovering it for contemporary life.Combining rich biblical and historical research with extensive interviewing of contemporary service communities -- the Catholic Worker, L'Abri,,L'Arche, Good Works, Annunciation House, St. John's Abbey, and others -- this book shows how understanding the key features of hospitality can better equip us to respond faithfully to contemporary needs and challenges." (book summary from Google books)

If you are interested in reading the book yourself, here’s the reference:
Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition
Christine D. Pohl, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999)

slippery slope (1)

Yes, this is cynical, but isn't it true that some people become worse after they become Christians? What's with that? If Jesus is all he's made out to be, shouldn't our lives be turned upside down when we decide to follow him?

Maybe the problem is that instead of following Jesus, we are following examples of western Christianity...

David Hayward has a great cartoon related to this:  "you were better before"

un

What do you think about that?

The 7Up ad, of course, used a twist on words to say that of all the colas you can find, something that was not a cola was better. And here is the suggestion that sometimes, a person who is not a christian makes a better christian than someone who is one.

Hmmm... perhaps some people who are christian in name are not christian in mind and action, and perhaps some people who are not christian in name are christian (viz., Christ-like) in their mind and action.

Not such a radical idea. Think of the parable of the two sons, where one said he would do something and didn't, and the other said he wouldn't do it but did. (Matthew 21:28-32). And at the end of that parable, Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. ³² For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

[for the love of God: a conversation about the bible and homosexuality]

Darkwood Brew, a "groundbreaking interactive web television program and spiritual gathering that explores progressive/emerging Christian faith and values", is starting a series called "For the Love of God: A Conversation about the Bible and Homosexuality."

This six part series started on December 31, 2012 and ends on February 3rd, 2013. Episodes are typically one hour long, including introduction, music, social media moments, interview with a Skype guest, and discussion. You can watch them live online Sunday evenings, or watch the recorded episodes after the fact.

Guests include Bruce Van Blair. Dr. Jacq Lapsely, Dr. Jack Levision, Rev. James A Forbes, and others.

Want a little preview? Check out the trailers.

For the Love of God series homepage (this page will list direct links to episodes as they become available for online viewing; we will also list them below)

Pt 1: (Peter`s Kosher) Pickle (Bruce Van Blair, guest)
Pt 2: The Coherent and the Contingent (Jacq Lapsely)
Pt 3: Sodom and Gomorrah (Rev. Dr. James Forbes)
Pt 4: Romans 1, 2 and 3 (Dr. Jack Levison)
Pt 5: A New Twist on an Old Parable (Sue Fulton and Justin Lee)
Pt 6: The Greatest of These (Bishop Gene Robinson)

[alleluia]

Daniel Berrigan S.J., is a Catholic priest, peace activist, and poet. This story from his book, Love, love at the end ties in well with the themes of this site:

There was once a man who died, and rose again to life.

He had been a suburban man. He remembered trudging through the open fields, a Saturday in the country. Had he been struck by lightning? Had a bull charged him? He recalled a streak of horror coming through broken fences, crowned with daisies, demonic and bloodshot. His groin felt as though it had been ripped into by a scythe.

He stood up. No fields, no space, no landmarks. A city street. Cold. A musty doorway. His coat and face and hands covered with a dust of snow. Dazed and drunk, two legs under him like sticks of wood.

It was a city street, night, and infernal cold. The neon went off and on down the canyon, a bleary charade of eyes.

He shook like a dog, and took a few steps. The plate glass of a bar window drew him. He looked, and looked again. What was it, what face looked back? Black face? His mouth froze in a scream, his voice stuck in his throat. The neon winked him off and on, made and destroyed him,  the ugliest joke of all creation. A black face held him; it said like a bad joke, like a truthful ad; don't buy me. Danger. I'm poison. I don't beautify. Beware. No one recommends me, no family sings for me. Beware.

His hands went to his throat. A string of cheap beads. To his chest; two breasts. A whore's careless dress, a sack of anguish. A woman? Who died there? What arose there?

And then the neon took voice, the night erupted. A band of herald angels rose from the sewers, from the skies, sang this birth. "Welcome, sister, to a new skin. Welcome to the other side. Why, you're now two-thirds of all of us; black. The other half of us, woman. Black woman. What piety, what merits won this rebirth?" For country acres, for country matters, for wise polity, for good acts and good investments, this reward. For that I was hungry and you knew me not, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink. Welcome. Not to punishment, not to hell. To a new chance. To a new body, to the new city.

Now, at length, I love you. Now I choose you. Welcome, outcast, reject, welcome to cold and fear and exhaustion and the dead end of corrupt hope. I anoint you and summon you, I kiss you with the kiss of my lips. Arise my love, my dove, my beautiful one.

Love, love at the end by Daniel Berrigan, S.J. (pp. 23-24)

left behind

Yes, another rapture cartoon! (see previous cartoon) This one ties in with that idea that floats around that 144,000 will be left behind when the rapture happens, which ties in with another idea (perhaps completely untrue) that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the 144,000 faithful -- except that there are more than 144,000 JW's today and someone's got to decide who stays and who gets swept up in the rapture.

And wouldn't you know it, they conveniently decided to leave a minority group behind.

where's the rapture when you need it?

Growing up, the rapture was a big deal, especially in the Baptist churches which I frequented. Along with discussions about it, there were movies and comics giving scary previews of what it would be like. And yes, it was because of such stories (told by my best friend back then) that I first "gave my life to Jesus".

For the new millenium and with the end of the world rapidly approaching, here's a more recent twist on the rapture:

This cartoon was inspired by an ironic photo I saw online, where two gay men are wanting the rapture to happen now, in order to get rid of Christian protestors with their hateful signs and angry words:



Photo credit: Photo taken by "perfectionequalsoverrated" of her dad and step dad at LA Gay Pride. Original site of posting no longer online.

[mercy not sacrifice]

From Richard Beck's blog, a simple post called "Jesus in Microcosm" giving us two verses contrasting the way of sacrifice and holiness with the way of mercy:

Leviticus 13.45-46
Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, "Unclean! Unclean!" As long as they have the disease they remain unclean.

They must live alone; they must live outside the camp.

Matthew 8.2-3a
A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”

And Jesus reached out his hand and touched him.

(source)

Jesus could have just told a parable about lepers, or added another paragraph or two in the sermon on the mount:
"You have heard it said, 'Lepers must live outside of the camp,' but I tell you, live outside the camp with them!"

That would be pretty extreme. Due to the emphasis on purity and holiness,the people of Jesus' day would have had trouble living with lepers anywhere, especially the religious leaders. I might have trouble with that too, as I like a clean house with all the comforts. And invariably, it would be possible to 'live in the camp with them' while still keeping a distance.

But Jesus was talk and walk all in one. The life he lived showed us the better way. He reached his hand right through the rules to touch the man with leprosy.

What rules do we need to reach through to touch the lives of others? How can we embody Jesus' teaching that God desires mercy, not sacrifice?

treasures in heaven

Perhaps some followers of Jesus have transferred their materialism to heaven. Instead of owning many things and having full bank accounts here on earth, they strive to do good things so that they will have treasures in heaven.

I get the idea of building up treasures in heaven instead of down here where they rot and rust. But wouldn't it be enough just to be with our heavenly Father? And what if loving others didn't result in heavenly treasures?

Some people, like the third person here, have been given the message that they won't get in, that they might be excluded.

[does a conservative belief have to translate into hateful attitudes and behaviours?]

Over the past year the news has had various stories about evangelical pastors with conservative perspectives on same-sex relations who are saying hateful things. Even extreme hateful things like "all gay and lesbian people should be rounded up and put inside an area with an electric fence and left to starve". And there are christians who you don't hear about, who snub their gay colleague or speak badly about their lesbian neighbours, or kick out their gay teenager. Granted, there are many pastors who are loving — but we don't hear much about them on the media.

Perhaps you are a christian who has a conservative or traditional view about homosexuality, yet you don't want to be mean and hateful to other people. Do you have to be? Does having a traditional or conservative view about same-sex relations have to go hand-in-hand with hating gay and lesbian people? Or is it possible to love others and be respectful of differences?

Wendy Gritter discusses this question in "A Study in Contrasts: how those with traditional views can speak publicly about homosexuality." The post offers two specific examples of people with traditional views of marriage: Dr. Richard Mouw who is the President of Fuller Seminary, and Kirk Cameron in an interview with Piers Morgan.  The specific context here is speaking in public about one's views, but the lessons can be applied when speaking and interacting individually as well. Wendy examines the ways in which they communicate and the attitudes which exist behind the words they spoke.

I did not listen to the Kirk Cameron interview, as I've heard enough similar things. But in light of Christian colleges and universities dealing with the question of same-sex relations, I did listen to the first 25 minutes of Dr. Mouw's address to the Fuller community, and while we have different theological perspectives, I respect the attitude of love, humility and generosity he showed as brought out in what he shared about conversations and interactions he has had with those who are part of a sexual minority.

What do you think? Does having a traditional or conservative view on homosexuality oblige a person to be hateful?

How can a person hold certain beliefs and yet act civilly – no, more than that – Christianly toward those who have different beliefs or who have taken a different path in life?

---

Learn more by reading "A Study in Contrasts: how those with traditional views can speak publicly about homosexuality" and watching the video clips.

two questions

Two questions, each with strange answer choices.

The first question relates to the reality that some people who are not of the Christian faith, find christians to be irrelevant and outdated; others find christians to be hateful and undesirable. So it's really a question about the role we who follow Jesus play in the world. Are we full of love and grace? Are we salt and light? Or are we divisive and hateful? Does the world need christians and if so, why?

The second questions relates to the reality that some straight christians do not believe that a person can be gay and christian, others do not want anything to do with gay Christians, and in any case, few can see anything good coming out of gay and lesbian people being part of the church. Are we not all God's children? How can we say "we don't need that group" or "we can do without her"?

What answers will you choose?

what I wish our churches taught us...

From reactive to proactive. Where does your church land on this scale? When it comes to controversial matters like abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and hell, many tend to be reactive, which means most of the time they ignore such matters. And then when there’s a pressing reason like proposed changes to legislation, an adult club renting the building next door, or a Rob Bell asking questions about heaven and hell, they marshal their resources, preach sermons, picket and boycott, and tweet tweets which they sometimes later regret.

A current example of this is the response churches are giving to the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. or the granting of same-sex blessings in Canada, where gay marriage is already legal.

Take my church, for example.

 At its recent meeting, our diocese held a vote to allow the bishop to give permission to priests who want to provide a blessing to same-sex couples who are in civil marriages. To say it another way, if a legally married same-sex couple asks the priest to give them a blessing, the priest must first ask for the bishop’s permission. Note that this resolution does not oblige any priests to provide such blessings; it simply gives the bishop permission to say “yes” if a priest asks. Now, the church we attend officially has a conservative view on marriage and was not pleased that the vote passed, in fact by a significant margin. In response to this, the leadership discussed the matter at the church’s semi-annual meeting, and will have a task group consider what response to make.

They also discussed it with the youth. And when our children came home from a youth day, one of them expressed that they didn’t know why the church was making such a big deal about blessing people who love each other when there’s more important things like KONY2012 happening in the world.

Some people might suggest that the leadership needs to do a better job of explaining how this really is a significant issue, and that the church should have been proactive in teaching its beliefs more clearly before a resolution like this one came up.

I would suggest that there’s a bigger picture that’s being missed here. And while it involves being proactive, it’s not about clarifying “what’s right and what’s wrong” before it becomes critical. It’s about perspective, respect for others, and God’s heart for people.

Here are four things that I wish pastors and others in church  leadership were teaching, with some recommendations for each point:


1.  The reality that God loves gay and lesbian people

Of course we are told in church that God loves everyone. When said generally like this, it is easier to forget this reality when we encounter people we don’t like or who are different from us. But when it is said with a specific people group in mind, it has more impact and is harder to ignore.

• State clearly that God loves lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Repeat on a regular basis.
• Affirm that Jesus gave his life for gay people and straight people and transgender people and everyone else.
• Emphasize that loving our neighbours includes loving LGBT neighbours, relatives, and colleagues. Give a similar emphasis to other particular neighbours depending on current events, your city or neighbourhood, etc. For example, emphasizing God’s love for Muslim neighbours would be particularly helpful after 9/11. The goal is not to single out a people group, but to emphasize God’s love for people whom we might find it easier to ignore or hate.

Related to this is the concept that the self of the other person matters more than my truth. As Miroslav Volf says, “I may not sacrifice the other at the altar of my truth. Jesus, who claimed to be the Truth, refused to use violence to ‘persuade’ those who did not recognize his truth.” (Exclusion and Embrace, page 272).

nothing nice to say

I'm sure my mother told me this in my childhood too, as the saying is definitely sunk deep into my brain. However, a reading of some of the cartoons on this blog might lead some to suspect that it hasn't sunk deep enough....

Then again, Ezekiel and the other prophets regularly said things which aren't nice. So why can't a regular guy like me, especially when it's for the purpose of provoking thinking about our attitudes and actions.

The balance? As Jamie Arpin-Ricci says, "The prophet rebuke must always point to the redemptive possibility." That's the challenge for me too, in writing this blog.

[some thoughts about hospitality]

“Hospitality means the creation of free space where the stranger can enter and become a friend instead of an enemy.”

Henri Nouwen

"So, what does true hospitality entail? I think it’s twofold: receiving someone as they are and generously extending whatever it is you have to share. It might be a banquet, or it might be your tears. Either way, the Apostle Paul says it should be offered in love, without grumbling (1 Peter 4:8-9).
...
Diana Butler Bass, again in A People's History of Christianity, writes that for the first few centuries of Christianity—starting with the church in Acts—"hospitality was the primary Christian virtue." It was "fundamental to being a person of the way,” and it was the "main motivator for conversions" (italics mine)."

Kristin Tennant in "Hospitality Outside of Pinterest" article

"I pray that none will be offended if I seek to make the Christian religion an inn where all are received joyously, rather than a cottage where some few friends of the family are to be received."

Richard Hooker

"Can we hold a Christian identity in a way that sends us toward the other with love and hospitality rather than with fear and hostility?"

Brian McLaren in video

"The opposite of cruelty is not simply freedom from the cruel relationship, it is hospitality.”

Philip Hallie, “From Cruelty to Goodness”, The Hastings Center Report 11 (1981): 26-27

'A century ago, William Booth recognized the importance of friendship with the poor when he wrote, “One of the secrets of the success of the Salvation Army is that the friendless find friends in it.” True hospitality involves friendship which “brings to the other what no law or revolution can: understanding and acceptance.” Hospitality, while certainly being insufficient in efforts for justice and transformation, is essential, very essential.'"

Christine D. Pohl commenting on and quoting W. Booth, in Making Room, p. 84

'Jean Vanier writes that “Welcome is one of the signs that a community is alive. To invite others to live with us is a sign that we aren’t afraid, that we have a treasure of truth and of peace to share.” He also offers an important warning: “A community which refuses to welcome—whether through fear, weariness, insecurity, a desire to cling to comfort, or just because it is fed up with visitors – is dying spiritually.”'

Christine D. Pohl quoting Jean Vanier, in Making Room, p. 160

"Hospitality will not make us safe, but it will lead us to risk joining in the work of mending the creation without requiring those who are different to become like us."

"This call for hospitality provides a clue to the possibility of welcoming difference, rather than creating a "cheap unity" built on compliance to one interpretation of faith in Christ."

"Difference is the gift that challenges us to practice such hospitality by resisting oppression and working for full human life and dignity for those with whom we stand in solidarity."

 ~ three quotes from Letty Russell  (Just Hospitality)

"... the act of hospitality is fundamentally an act of human recognition and embrace. If exclusion is fundamentally dehumanizing, hospitality acts to restore full human status to the marginalized and outcast.

Richard Beck, Unclean, pp. 122-123

"Hostage-taking is just another form of hospitality."

Jonathan Larson, Making Friends among the Taliban:

A Peacemaker's Journey in Afghanistan. p. 41

"Thus, the welcoming of the stranger is an eccentric encounter.

Consequently, a hospitable community will be eccentrically oriented, moving out from the center toward the edges and then past the boundaries to the area "outside" the faith community."

Richard Beck in "Eccentric Christianity: Part 3,

Welcoming God in the Stranger"

The people who feel welcomed are the people who you have set a table of hospitality for.

Doug Paul

If your church is a house, is everyone an owner? Or are some people guests? The difference is that owners can move the furniture, do renovations, etc. without having to ask anyone other than the other owners. Guest need to be polite.

adapted from Misty Irons

---

Note: This page is an ongoing collection of brief thoughts about hospitality that resonate with the goals of this blog. It will be expanded on over time. Other posts will contain more extensive quotes on hospitality.

peter's crazy vision

Acts 10 - 11 give the account of Peter's vision. In the dream, he, a Jew, is instructed to eat all kinds of creatures. He declines to do so, on account of these things being impure or unclean according to Old Testament laws. Then the same God who gave these laws, tells him not to call anything that God has made unclean. Shortly thereafter, some Gentiles arrive at his gate, having been sent by an angel.

It would appear that God has changed His mind here, or is at least indicating clearly that certain laws from before do not apply anymore. This frees Peter up to reach out to the Gentile visitors.


Might there be other things which God said before, which He does not want us to hold to anymore? And what if our reply is "You're crazy! That's not what the Bible says"?

[the good son first to see prodigal]

Are we ready to invite others? Jay Bakker writes:

Imagine for a minute how differently the prodigal son story would have played out if the father hadn't been there to intervene. What if instead it had been the good son who greeted the prodigal?

There would have been no happy reunion. No hugs and kisses. You can be damned sure there'd be no fattened calf or homecoming party. The good son would have lain back and watched his brother approach, his indignation growing with every approaching step.

By the time the prodigal reached the front door, the good son's anger would have been boiling over, and his first words might have been something like this: "Look at you come crawling back. Why did you even bother? You used up your share of the inheritance. And what do you have to show for it? Nothing. Well, don't think you can share mine. There's nothing for you here. Everything Dad left is for me. I did all the hard work while you blew it off. I earned it and you don't deserve it. Dad wanted me to have it. Now go away and don't come back.....ever!"

In some ways the good son's mistake (thinking that he has earned his own salvation) is the more problematic one, because it makes it harder for the prodigal to return. Versions of this scene play out every day in real life between Christians. Half the reason people stay away from the church is because they know that the good sons and daughters are waiting at the door to judge and reject them when they try to enter.

From Jay Bakker's book Fall to Grace: a revolution of God, self and society, pages 91-92

Have you ever felt unwelcomed somewhere, because of who you are or what you've done?

How can the reality of the father, waiting with arms wide open, be lived out by those who follow Jesus?

[resource on "finding our identity in Christ, not sexual orientation"]

The Nov/Dec 2012 issue of Evangelicals for Social Action's Prism magazine is on the overall topic of "Beyond Labels: Finding our identity in Christ, not sexual orientation".  It features articles and stories from a wide range of perspectives on this topic, and I highly recommend it. Mind you, some parts of it I agree with, and others I do not, but it is enlightening in any case and helps me better to understand this key matter.

Here's a sample quote from an article by Joshua Gonnerman:

The stories offered to gay people by mainstream religion and secular society are enticing, offering hope of acceptance, fulfillment, pride, and, most recently, marriage. The stories the more traditionally inclined churches have offered have tended towards either heterosexualization or stories focused on burden/struggle. As long as matters are framed thus, the gospel will continue to be outside the realm of possibility for most gay people. How far this is from the gospel where Christ declares, “I have come that they might have life, and that more abundantly”!

Read more at http://prismmagazine.org/currentissue/

There is also a downloadable version along with study questions if you wish to use this in other contexts.