The Barna Group recently ran a survey asking Christians to define spiritual maturity. Their findings say that no one--churchgoers and pastors alike--can really define spiritual maturity. In fact, most churchgoers equate maturity with following rules and don't know what their churches expect from them in terms of spiritual maturity.
Perhaps they don't know because many churches are not prepared to teach or encourage real spiritual growth. Much of the activity we see in churches today tends to center more on validating the status quo rather than probing, challenging "conventional wisdom" and growing spiritually.
Churchgoers defined spiritual maturity as having a relationship with Jesus, practicing spiritual disciplines like prayer and Bible study, living according to the Bible, being obedient, being involved in church and having concern for others.
According to the study, even pastors struggled with defining spiritual maturity and articulated maturity in relation to what activities people did rather than by their attitudes.
I find all of these explanations of maturity inadequate. Anyone can have a relationship with Jesus, God has made it that way. However, there is a growth process involved. Anyone can practice spiritual disciplines and live according to the Bible--would that be regarded as obedient? But we do not live by every rule in the Bible. If we did, we would be stoning those committing adultery and dragging sassy adolescents into court and having them killed. How can we relate Scripture to our postmodern world when the majority of Christians do not truly investigate what it means? Most are satisfied with commentators who agree with their opinions (if they read commentaries), or are satisfied with what they've known for decades.
Anyone can be involved in the church, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are spiritually mature. Ask anyone who's been kicked out of a pew by an old "saint" who had claimed that pew long before the church was built, if everyone is spiritually mature. What about the fighting and bickering that goes on amongst congregation members? Does that reflect spiritual maturity? What about those who criticize the pastor either behind his or her back or to his or her face? Is that spiritually mature?
Having concern for others isn't adequate either. Atheists have genuine concerns for other people too.
So what makes one spiritually mature? I'm not sure. It's one of those things that you know if you see it and you definitely know if you don't see it. Most Christians are growing and one Christian's growth differs from another. Within ourselves, we may excel in one area and then completely blow it in the next. Some Christians are content to go to church on Sundays, yet do not listen to the Holy Spirit. Some hide their lack of obedience well, so defining, or more accurately, labeling someone as spiritually mature can prove difficult.
Nonetheless, I have found that the most mature Christians I know are those who show evidence of the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) more often than not. As Henri Nouwen said, they also exhibit attributes from the Beatitudes. Spiritually mature people are obedient to the Holy Spirit, even if it means changing some habit or some undesirable aspect about themselves. Love permeates their lives.
A good indication of spiritual maturity is in Proverbs 24: 16: " ... for though (righteous people) fall seven times, they will rise again; but the wicked are overthrown by calamity (NRSV)." The righteous are resilient despite circumstances and always come back to God after they fail. I believe that this resiliency comes from a deep love for God and a desire to please him. Returning, staying faithful, love--in my book that's the mark of a spiritually mature believer.
What do you think? To respond, e-mail me at ljtdchurchnews@gmail.com, or bring in or mail a signed written response to the Tribune-Democrat. Our address is, PO Box 500, La Junta, CO 81050.
Thursday
Book Review
Jesus, the Final Days brings light to resurrection
Even though Easter is past, reading about the resurrection never gets old. In the book Jesus, the Final Days, written by Craig A. Evans and N. T. Wright and edited by Troy A. Miller, Miller has edited talks given by Evans and Wright on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
These talks are centered around historical and archaeological evidence supporting the biblical accounts found in the Gospels. They also dispel several theories that seek to dismiss the resurrection as a fable.
Though probably not for educated biblical scholars with doctorates, Jesus, the Final Days would be a great resource for pastors, Sunday school teachers and those who want an in depth background study of the resurrection accounts found in the four Gospels.
For instance, Evans, who is a Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College in Canada and the author of other books, describes ancient burial practices employed during the time of Christ, both for criminals and non-criminals. He writes about Passover pardons, and explores Pilate's thinking regarding the pardon of Jesus and Barabbas. What was more politically expedient? What would keep the peace? Wright writes compellingly on the authenticity of each Gospel, even though the accounts differ.
Wright, the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, has written over 40 books including extensive writings on the resurrection. Wright, who's writing style reminds one of C. S. Lewis (but easier to understand), presents the origin of Christian thinking on the resurrection. Was it from pagan sources, as some claim? Or was Christian thinking based in Jewish thought?
Wright also explores the credibility of ancient accounts. Did the ancients have as much knowledge as moderns claim to possess in this enlightened age?
Jesus, the Final Days is a great book to read during the year, rather than during the rush of the Lent and the Easter season. Pick up a copy today and keep the resurrection close to your heart all year long!
Getting a genuine makeover
Anyone who did not attend the Spring Makeover: Inside and Out retreat at the La Junta Church of the Nazarene last weekend missed a great event.
I usually do not like retreats and really have to psych myself up to go. As a person who has grown up in the church, I have had more than my share of guilt dumped upon my shoulders by well meaning people. I can look back at some retreats after which a good counseling session would have been welcome.
But this retreat was different. Not only did we have a great time in all of the workshops making body scrubs, meal plans and purses out of jeans, but the speaker was outstanding. Dr. Gay Hubbard spoke with warmth and humility. She encouraged us to keep going and to take care of ourselves because it greatly affects our spiritual lives. I wish I could tell you all of what she said, but you'll have to read it in her new book coming out later this year.
One thing she did say that I will--without guilt--incorporate into this commentary is this: The key to a good makeover, she said, is in allowing Christ to shine through us as he continues to do his work in our hearts. Christ is the one who has had the ultimate makeover. On the third day he rose from the grave with a glorified body. However, instead of getting rid of his scars, he chose to keep them.
Wow. He chose to keep his scars. In our world that is so enamored of outward beauty, the Maker of the universe and Creator of humanity chose to keep his scars. These scars must continually remind him of his suffering, but they also speak volumes about his victory. Without the resurrection, Christ's death would have been just like any other crucifixion and our faith would be in vain. Thank God it isn't!
Because of Christ's resurrection, we can hope for two things. The first is eternal life. C.S. Lewis said, "There are better things ahead than any we leave behind." That is true for both the afterlife and the life we are now living. So the second hope is that once we accept Christ, everything we are heading toward is certainly better than what we have left behind in this life. In this life we will still have troubles, sickness and heartache, but Christ stands beside us. This makes all the difference as we deal with life's tribulations.
Because of Christ, then, we can also look forward to life beyond the grave. In First Corinthians Paul quoted Isaiah and Hosea when he wrote, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
That victory comes now and in the future--what a makeover!
I usually do not like retreats and really have to psych myself up to go. As a person who has grown up in the church, I have had more than my share of guilt dumped upon my shoulders by well meaning people. I can look back at some retreats after which a good counseling session would have been welcome.
But this retreat was different. Not only did we have a great time in all of the workshops making body scrubs, meal plans and purses out of jeans, but the speaker was outstanding. Dr. Gay Hubbard spoke with warmth and humility. She encouraged us to keep going and to take care of ourselves because it greatly affects our spiritual lives. I wish I could tell you all of what she said, but you'll have to read it in her new book coming out later this year.
One thing she did say that I will--without guilt--incorporate into this commentary is this: The key to a good makeover, she said, is in allowing Christ to shine through us as he continues to do his work in our hearts. Christ is the one who has had the ultimate makeover. On the third day he rose from the grave with a glorified body. However, instead of getting rid of his scars, he chose to keep them.
Wow. He chose to keep his scars. In our world that is so enamored of outward beauty, the Maker of the universe and Creator of humanity chose to keep his scars. These scars must continually remind him of his suffering, but they also speak volumes about his victory. Without the resurrection, Christ's death would have been just like any other crucifixion and our faith would be in vain. Thank God it isn't!
Because of Christ's resurrection, we can hope for two things. The first is eternal life. C.S. Lewis said, "There are better things ahead than any we leave behind." That is true for both the afterlife and the life we are now living. So the second hope is that once we accept Christ, everything we are heading toward is certainly better than what we have left behind in this life. In this life we will still have troubles, sickness and heartache, but Christ stands beside us. This makes all the difference as we deal with life's tribulations.
Because of Christ, then, we can also look forward to life beyond the grave. In First Corinthians Paul quoted Isaiah and Hosea when he wrote, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
That victory comes now and in the future--what a makeover!
Nice Words Make a Difference
Well, I finally saw "Fireproof" and I have to say that it was a terrific movie. I've never seen Kirk Cameron play someone who behaved meanly, but that's beside the point. It is a memorable movie with a great message and I would suggest giving it to the married couples on your Christmas list.
The one scene that stood out for me in the movie has been tickling my brain for a couple of weeks. I need to write about it because this is something that all of us do. Even if you haven't seen the movie you will know what I am talking about.
Do you remember the scene after Kirk Cameron tells the flirtatious doctor to stay away from his wife and a nurse is standing outside the doctor's office listening to everything? Do you remember what she did? She went right back to the nurse's station and told everybody what had happened, but when Kirk Cameron's estranged wife came up and wanted to know what they were talking about she went silent. "It's none of my business," the gossip told another nurse later.
This nurse was quick to spread news about someone to other people, but she was not willing to tell the news to the person who really mattered. If this nurse had told the wife, the movie might have been a lot shorter because the wife might have gone back to her husband.
Gossip, whether it is good news or bad news, is not right. The old adage "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all," is good rule of thumb when talking about other people--actually talking about other people is not the best thing to do. Psychologists say that talking about other people is not a very intelligent form of conversation. Another rule of thumb might be that if you can't say something to someone directly then don't tell it to anyone else. I am not talking about seeking advice from a trusted friend about a situation, or about releasing a burden to a trusted friend. I am talking about gossip. There is a difference.
Proverbs 12:25 is sage advice when talking to other people. It says: "An anxious heart weighs a man down, but a kind word cheers him up."
We'll never know if Kirk Cameron's wife would have been encouraged by what her husband did because the nurse didn't tell her. Have you had this happen to you? Do you know someone who is going through a tough situation and needs an encouraging word? It doesn't matter if the person is in the wrong or right. When people do wrong a lot of times they just need to know that they can have another chance. Encouraging words do not need to validate an act; they are meant to give value or return it to a person.
People need encouraging words whether they are going through a difficult time or not. This does not mean that we have to be less than genuine or be sickeningly sweet. We just need to be honest and speak up if someone does something that we like or admire. It's good for them and it's good for us.
The one scene that stood out for me in the movie has been tickling my brain for a couple of weeks. I need to write about it because this is something that all of us do. Even if you haven't seen the movie you will know what I am talking about.
Do you remember the scene after Kirk Cameron tells the flirtatious doctor to stay away from his wife and a nurse is standing outside the doctor's office listening to everything? Do you remember what she did? She went right back to the nurse's station and told everybody what had happened, but when Kirk Cameron's estranged wife came up and wanted to know what they were talking about she went silent. "It's none of my business," the gossip told another nurse later.
This nurse was quick to spread news about someone to other people, but she was not willing to tell the news to the person who really mattered. If this nurse had told the wife, the movie might have been a lot shorter because the wife might have gone back to her husband.
Gossip, whether it is good news or bad news, is not right. The old adage "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all," is good rule of thumb when talking about other people--actually talking about other people is not the best thing to do. Psychologists say that talking about other people is not a very intelligent form of conversation. Another rule of thumb might be that if you can't say something to someone directly then don't tell it to anyone else. I am not talking about seeking advice from a trusted friend about a situation, or about releasing a burden to a trusted friend. I am talking about gossip. There is a difference.
Proverbs 12:25 is sage advice when talking to other people. It says: "An anxious heart weighs a man down, but a kind word cheers him up."
We'll never know if Kirk Cameron's wife would have been encouraged by what her husband did because the nurse didn't tell her. Have you had this happen to you? Do you know someone who is going through a tough situation and needs an encouraging word? It doesn't matter if the person is in the wrong or right. When people do wrong a lot of times they just need to know that they can have another chance. Encouraging words do not need to validate an act; they are meant to give value or return it to a person.
People need encouraging words whether they are going through a difficult time or not. This does not mean that we have to be less than genuine or be sickeningly sweet. We just need to be honest and speak up if someone does something that we like or admire. It's good for them and it's good for us.
Spring is full of miracles
The older I get, the more I love spring. Spring means new life after a long winter. When I was young I didn't like spring because it reminded me that summer was coming and I am not a fan of really hot weather.
Now, I enjoy spring. Seeing the world come back to life is amazing.
The family and I were out the other day for a bike ride on Road CC west of Swink. It was getting close to sunset and there were billowy clouds to the south. Toward the west we could see the Southern Mountains. As the sun continued to go down a light haze rested over fields that were just beginning to sprout new growth.
It was a lovely evening. The birds were chirping. The breeze blew gently and it was warm enough to wear a light jacket. All of us enjoyed getting out in the fresh air.
One of my favorite things about spring is sitting in my bay window right now: seedlings. We're going to plant a garden this year so we are growing some of our own plants. I love to watch the little seedlings stretch out of the dirt, some still clinging to the hull of the seed that brought them life.
I witnessed this miracle for the first time in Michigan. We had a large garden and I enjoyed watching the plants grow and develop. The fact that one small seed could produce hundreds of green beans, melons, tomatoes or peppers is still amazing to me.
One small seed, planted in the ground quietly dies and is gloriously transformed into something bigger, better and beneficial to humanity.
In Romans 1 Paul writes, "Ever since the creation of the world (God's) invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."
When I witness the miracle of the seed, I think of this verse because what happened to the seed happened to Jesus, who died and then was placed in a tomb. Three days later he rose again into something glorious, new and better--a new covenant, a new life for those who believe, a definite benefit to humankind.
There are other lessons to learn from the garden and from nature, so perhaps I will write about those later. This lesson, however, is one of my favorites. New life, resurrection, is why we celebrate Easter. That's why we live in hope throughout the long winter and welcome spring.
Now, I enjoy spring. Seeing the world come back to life is amazing.
The family and I were out the other day for a bike ride on Road CC west of Swink. It was getting close to sunset and there were billowy clouds to the south. Toward the west we could see the Southern Mountains. As the sun continued to go down a light haze rested over fields that were just beginning to sprout new growth.
It was a lovely evening. The birds were chirping. The breeze blew gently and it was warm enough to wear a light jacket. All of us enjoyed getting out in the fresh air.
One of my favorite things about spring is sitting in my bay window right now: seedlings. We're going to plant a garden this year so we are growing some of our own plants. I love to watch the little seedlings stretch out of the dirt, some still clinging to the hull of the seed that brought them life.
I witnessed this miracle for the first time in Michigan. We had a large garden and I enjoyed watching the plants grow and develop. The fact that one small seed could produce hundreds of green beans, melons, tomatoes or peppers is still amazing to me.
One small seed, planted in the ground quietly dies and is gloriously transformed into something bigger, better and beneficial to humanity.
In Romans 1 Paul writes, "Ever since the creation of the world (God's) invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."
When I witness the miracle of the seed, I think of this verse because what happened to the seed happened to Jesus, who died and then was placed in a tomb. Three days later he rose again into something glorious, new and better--a new covenant, a new life for those who believe, a definite benefit to humankind.
There are other lessons to learn from the garden and from nature, so perhaps I will write about those later. This lesson, however, is one of my favorites. New life, resurrection, is why we celebrate Easter. That's why we live in hope throughout the long winter and welcome spring.
Tuesday
April is a busy month
The card companies are missing out if they are not in tune with all of the religious celebrations going on this month.
As I was going over the world religion calendar, I was amazed by all of the activity that the month of April holds. There is the Theravadin New Year, Passover, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israeli Independence Day, the birthday of a monkey god in the Hindu religion and a commemoration of the 12-day period in which Baha'u'llah of the Baha'i religion declared that he was God's messenger.
In Christian circles, this is the month of Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and, of course, Easter. Easter is the most important celebration in the Christian faith.
As one who grew up in a Protestant denomination, Easter, Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas all meant celebration for me and my family. These days were also celebrated at church. Later on there was more emphasis was placed on Maundy Thursday and family communion became an important part of that day.
Because of my background, I am continually intrigued by all of the different celebrations that people of other Christian traditions celebrate on any given Sunday. To a Protestant whose church does not follow the liturgical calendar, Sunday is a day for church. To our Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters around the world who follow liturgy, most Sundays celebrate some aspect of the life of Jesus or are a day to celebrate the life of someone who followed Jesus.
In the April calendar we see that Eastern Orthodox Christians will celebrate the resurrection of Mary and Martha's brother on "Lazarus Saturday" on the eve of Orthodox Easter. Other Christians will celebrate St. George's Day Thursday, April 23. St. George was a calvaryman who died a martyr's death at the hand of the Roman Emperor Diocletian. He is associated with a knight overcoming a dragon--a symbol of victory in Christianity over paganism.
But why does this matter?
As I grow in my faith and study various Christian practices, I see that it is important for people of faith to remember that from which they came. It's all about community.
Days of remembrance are important in establishing community because those stories and experiences link us to Scripture and to fellow believers of the past. It reminds us that we are part of a big picture. When we spend time focusing on different people and events, we gain a better perspective on our own lives. We learn to cultivate traits such as courage, patience, compassion and self-control.
For example, spending time reflecting on the life of Mother Teresa might move me toward a more in-depth prayer life. Reflecting on the resurrection of Lazarus shows me that Jesus can handle any situation at any time and in every way. Thinking about the martyrdom of St. James the Great on April 30 may spur me fearlessly on toward greater works.
Celebrating different events and people, quite frankly, keeps church from becoming a dull, weekly obligation.
Common experiences also link Christians to one another. The other day I was at the Presbyterian Church Variety Show/Youth Fund raiser called "Structured Chaos." At the end of the program everyone joined in singing "Amazing Grace." When the group reached the last verse that sense of community washed over me:
When we've been there 10,000 years, bright shining as the sun. We've no less days to sing God's praise then when we first begun.
This common bond expressed in song between at least two, maybe even several, different denominations that were represented at the event, reminded me that we are all living the Christian life together and that someday we will be in heaven worshipping God together. Whatever petty differences there are should be laid aside as we reflect on what beliefs and traditions are common among us.
As I was going over the world religion calendar, I was amazed by all of the activity that the month of April holds. There is the Theravadin New Year, Passover, Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israeli Independence Day, the birthday of a monkey god in the Hindu religion and a commemoration of the 12-day period in which Baha'u'llah of the Baha'i religion declared that he was God's messenger.
In Christian circles, this is the month of Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and, of course, Easter. Easter is the most important celebration in the Christian faith.
As one who grew up in a Protestant denomination, Easter, Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas all meant celebration for me and my family. These days were also celebrated at church. Later on there was more emphasis was placed on Maundy Thursday and family communion became an important part of that day.
Because of my background, I am continually intrigued by all of the different celebrations that people of other Christian traditions celebrate on any given Sunday. To a Protestant whose church does not follow the liturgical calendar, Sunday is a day for church. To our Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters around the world who follow liturgy, most Sundays celebrate some aspect of the life of Jesus or are a day to celebrate the life of someone who followed Jesus.
In the April calendar we see that Eastern Orthodox Christians will celebrate the resurrection of Mary and Martha's brother on "Lazarus Saturday" on the eve of Orthodox Easter. Other Christians will celebrate St. George's Day Thursday, April 23. St. George was a calvaryman who died a martyr's death at the hand of the Roman Emperor Diocletian. He is associated with a knight overcoming a dragon--a symbol of victory in Christianity over paganism.
But why does this matter?
As I grow in my faith and study various Christian practices, I see that it is important for people of faith to remember that from which they came. It's all about community.
Days of remembrance are important in establishing community because those stories and experiences link us to Scripture and to fellow believers of the past. It reminds us that we are part of a big picture. When we spend time focusing on different people and events, we gain a better perspective on our own lives. We learn to cultivate traits such as courage, patience, compassion and self-control.
For example, spending time reflecting on the life of Mother Teresa might move me toward a more in-depth prayer life. Reflecting on the resurrection of Lazarus shows me that Jesus can handle any situation at any time and in every way. Thinking about the martyrdom of St. James the Great on April 30 may spur me fearlessly on toward greater works.
Celebrating different events and people, quite frankly, keeps church from becoming a dull, weekly obligation.
Common experiences also link Christians to one another. The other day I was at the Presbyterian Church Variety Show/Youth Fund raiser called "Structured Chaos." At the end of the program everyone joined in singing "Amazing Grace." When the group reached the last verse that sense of community washed over me:
When we've been there 10,000 years, bright shining as the sun. We've no less days to sing God's praise then when we first begun.
This common bond expressed in song between at least two, maybe even several, different denominations that were represented at the event, reminded me that we are all living the Christian life together and that someday we will be in heaven worshipping God together. Whatever petty differences there are should be laid aside as we reflect on what beliefs and traditions are common among us.
Monday
Hurting? Find comfort at "The Shack"
In a world where unexplained tragedy occurs, William Paul Young's novel "The Shack" may serve as a source of comfort. The New York Times Bestseller tells the story of Mackenzie Allen Phillips, whose little daughter Missy has been abducted and brutally murdered.
In the aftermath, "Mack" questions the goodness of God and in his anger and depression begins to wonder why he should follow God.
Then, on a wintery day, Mack receives a note from God in his mailbox inviting him to meet God at the shack where Missy was killed. Mack accepts the invitation and heads back to the dreaded place not knowing what to expect. What he finds there changes him completely.
"The Shack" has been in print since 2007 and has received mixed reviews. Some readers hate it, others love it. Most of the hatred seems to be based on how the author depicts the Trinity, which goes beyond the conventional view that God is a male. Young's depiction is not modern feminist theology, however, his view echoes Scripture and what Christian writer Henri Nouwen wrote in "The Return of the Prodigal Son," that "God is both Father and Mother to us."
The question then becomes, are conventional views of the Trinity correct? Who really understands the Trinity anyway? "The Shack" definitely gives thoughtful material on the matter.
The book also addresses the question of how God communicates with people. Is God's revelation limited to Scripture? Does God still speak to his children they way he spoke to people in the Bible? "The Shack" provides hope that God has not stopped speaking; in fact, it sparks the imagination as to how God does speak to us.
Overall, "The Shack" makes God look good. The writer emphasizes several times that Jesus came in flesh. The book does not degrade the Bible in any way. "The Shack" provokes thoughtful response on the questions that people have been asking since the dawn of time: What is the nature of God? Does God speak to humanity? It also addresses the greatest question of all: Does God care for me?
Young's easy style of writing makes the book a fast read, but don't read it too fast. You'll miss out on the depth of the story.
You can find "The Shack" at The Shack
Thursday
Two Commentaries
Today, my husband Mike and I published two complementary commentaries on the religion page of the La Junta Tribune-Democrat. We thought that they might be of interest to Yahbut's readers...
The Moral Incoherance of the Obama Administration
by Mike Steeves
First, I confess that the "moral incoherence" thing is lifted from columnist Michael Gerson's recent article in the Washington Post. Gerson notes that there is "one common thread" running through President Obama's pro-choice agenda: "the coercion of those who disagree with it." Gerson's article is about the manner in which the Obama administration runs roughshod over human life, relegating it to the status of what is politically convenient. Gerson notes, "It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone's complicity in their agenda. Somehow, getting "politics out of science" translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation. ‘Choice’ becomes a demand on doctors and nurses to violate their deepest beliefs or face discrimination."
Obama has nominated Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. She will implement the government's policies on human embryonic stem cell research - you know, where we take "leftovers" and poke 'em and strip them of cells for research, killing them in the process. Sebelius, a practicing Catholic, maintains that "my Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred."
Pro-choice extremists House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Biden are Catholics who assert the sanctity of life while defending government-sanctioned abortion. Sebelius has been rebuked by her archbishop for this. Pelosi earned a figurative backhand from the Pope during her visit to the Vatican. Gerson writes, "this appointment seems designed to provide religious cover. It also smacks of religious humiliation - like asking a rabbi to serve the pork roast or an atheist to bless the meal."
Then we have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Prior to September 2007 Clinton was at best ambivalent about "torture" of terrorist suspects held in military facilities. Then she did a flip-flop, coming out against it. At that point neither she nor then candidate Obama had signed that American Freedom Campaign petition requesting all presidential candidates oppose torture. Obama said of Clinton, "There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing."
Clinton's lack of a moral compass is nowhere more evident than her even more recent "flip-flop" on human rights. Long a highly vocal opponent of Chinese human rights violations, Clinton said during her recent visit to the Far East: "But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." Amnesty International expressed shock and extreme disappointment over that comment. A Washington Post's editorial was more pointed: "Hillary Rodham Clinton undercuts the State Department's own human rights reporting," in direct reference to Clinton's gushing over Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
The State Department reported on Feb. 25, "the [Egyptian] government's respect for human rights remained poor during 2008” and “serious abuses continued in many areas." It cited torture by security forces and a decline in freedom of the press, association and religion. Clinton responded with "We issue these reports on every country. We hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement." The Washington Post fired back with "Ms. Clinton's words will be treasured by al-Qaeda recruiters and anti-American propagandists throughout the Middle East. She appears oblivious to how offensive such statements are to the millions of Egyptians who loathe Mr. Mubarak's oppressive government and blame the United States for propping it up."
These are odd behaviors for some of the most senior members of the political party that ranted and raved against President Bush over Guantanamo and the so-called "torture" of terrorist suspects. Some truths are apparently not all that self-evident.
Religious beliefs provide moral compass in political mire
by Alicia Gossman-Steeves
Do religion and politics mix? Coming from a Wesleyan holiness background, my first answer is an unequivocal "yes." However, the answer is not that simple.
As an American I recognize that the founding fathers fought hard to keep religion out of politics, or government, and vice versa. Memories of extensive religious persecution in the Old Country was fresh in their minds and they did not want to repeat it in the fledgling country that they were trying to create. I'm glad they did this. How would you like to be tortured or have your head mounted on a pike just because the President happened to be Protestant or Catholic, Jewish or Muslim and you did not share his or her religious views?
There is a group in our society that fervently believes that the founding fathers were all God fearing Christians whose intent was to "found a Christian nation." A simple review of their writings shows this is not true. In fact one of our most brilliant founders, Thomas Paine, often called The Father of the American Revolution because of his authorship of Common Sense, was at once a believer in God yet a disbeliever in Christianity. Others of our founders may have feared God in a reverent way, but what they feared most were people using God to promote their own agenda and persecuting others in the process. They feared religion taking over government and government taking over religion.
As long as government, people, religion and politics exist this fear will be rational. There is nothing wrong with zeal, the apostle Paul said, as long as the purpose is good. The zeal people feel about certain agendas should never leak into government and government should not regulate certain practices. The purpose of government is to govern, or to administer the law. The role of government is not to dictate. Faith should not dictate either.
Where religious belief comes in, and where my unequivocal "yes" falls, is when faith is used as a moral compass to guide decision making and is not forced on anyone else (Notice I said "forced." There is nothing wrong with reasonable discussion.). This is where I see many of America's political leaders failing miserably on both sides.
What we need is a return to values on which the majority of people can agree. Following the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule were not bad ideas for our society to follow. Incidentally, several religions incorporate these values as well and many people in our society try to incorporate these values even though they do not claim to follow Christ or Judaism. These age old values can be a moral compass, one which our society can lean upon so that everyone can live in harmony, freedom, and justice. Government should come in when people do not follow that law. Cannot people of faith lead this charge? I believe they can and should.
The Moral Incoherance of the Obama Administration
by Mike Steeves
First, I confess that the "moral incoherence" thing is lifted from columnist Michael Gerson's recent article in the Washington Post. Gerson notes that there is "one common thread" running through President Obama's pro-choice agenda: "the coercion of those who disagree with it." Gerson's article is about the manner in which the Obama administration runs roughshod over human life, relegating it to the status of what is politically convenient. Gerson notes, "It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone's complicity in their agenda. Somehow, getting "politics out of science" translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation. ‘Choice’ becomes a demand on doctors and nurses to violate their deepest beliefs or face discrimination."
Obama has nominated Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. She will implement the government's policies on human embryonic stem cell research - you know, where we take "leftovers" and poke 'em and strip them of cells for research, killing them in the process. Sebelius, a practicing Catholic, maintains that "my Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred."
Pro-choice extremists House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Biden are Catholics who assert the sanctity of life while defending government-sanctioned abortion. Sebelius has been rebuked by her archbishop for this. Pelosi earned a figurative backhand from the Pope during her visit to the Vatican. Gerson writes, "this appointment seems designed to provide religious cover. It also smacks of religious humiliation - like asking a rabbi to serve the pork roast or an atheist to bless the meal."
Then we have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Prior to September 2007 Clinton was at best ambivalent about "torture" of terrorist suspects held in military facilities. Then she did a flip-flop, coming out against it. At that point neither she nor then candidate Obama had signed that American Freedom Campaign petition requesting all presidential candidates oppose torture. Obama said of Clinton, "There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing."
Clinton's lack of a moral compass is nowhere more evident than her even more recent "flip-flop" on human rights. Long a highly vocal opponent of Chinese human rights violations, Clinton said during her recent visit to the Far East: "But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." Amnesty International expressed shock and extreme disappointment over that comment. A Washington Post's editorial was more pointed: "Hillary Rodham Clinton undercuts the State Department's own human rights reporting," in direct reference to Clinton's gushing over Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
The State Department reported on Feb. 25, "the [Egyptian] government's respect for human rights remained poor during 2008” and “serious abuses continued in many areas." It cited torture by security forces and a decline in freedom of the press, association and religion. Clinton responded with "We issue these reports on every country. We hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement." The Washington Post fired back with "Ms. Clinton's words will be treasured by al-Qaeda recruiters and anti-American propagandists throughout the Middle East. She appears oblivious to how offensive such statements are to the millions of Egyptians who loathe Mr. Mubarak's oppressive government and blame the United States for propping it up."
These are odd behaviors for some of the most senior members of the political party that ranted and raved against President Bush over Guantanamo and the so-called "torture" of terrorist suspects. Some truths are apparently not all that self-evident.
Religious beliefs provide moral compass in political mire
by Alicia Gossman-Steeves
Do religion and politics mix? Coming from a Wesleyan holiness background, my first answer is an unequivocal "yes." However, the answer is not that simple.
As an American I recognize that the founding fathers fought hard to keep religion out of politics, or government, and vice versa. Memories of extensive religious persecution in the Old Country was fresh in their minds and they did not want to repeat it in the fledgling country that they were trying to create. I'm glad they did this. How would you like to be tortured or have your head mounted on a pike just because the President happened to be Protestant or Catholic, Jewish or Muslim and you did not share his or her religious views?
There is a group in our society that fervently believes that the founding fathers were all God fearing Christians whose intent was to "found a Christian nation." A simple review of their writings shows this is not true. In fact one of our most brilliant founders, Thomas Paine, often called The Father of the American Revolution because of his authorship of Common Sense, was at once a believer in God yet a disbeliever in Christianity. Others of our founders may have feared God in a reverent way, but what they feared most were people using God to promote their own agenda and persecuting others in the process. They feared religion taking over government and government taking over religion.
As long as government, people, religion and politics exist this fear will be rational. There is nothing wrong with zeal, the apostle Paul said, as long as the purpose is good. The zeal people feel about certain agendas should never leak into government and government should not regulate certain practices. The purpose of government is to govern, or to administer the law. The role of government is not to dictate. Faith should not dictate either.
Where religious belief comes in, and where my unequivocal "yes" falls, is when faith is used as a moral compass to guide decision making and is not forced on anyone else (Notice I said "forced." There is nothing wrong with reasonable discussion.). This is where I see many of America's political leaders failing miserably on both sides.
What we need is a return to values on which the majority of people can agree. Following the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule were not bad ideas for our society to follow. Incidentally, several religions incorporate these values as well and many people in our society try to incorporate these values even though they do not claim to follow Christ or Judaism. These age old values can be a moral compass, one which our society can lean upon so that everyone can live in harmony, freedom, and justice. Government should come in when people do not follow that law. Cannot people of faith lead this charge? I believe they can and should.
Tuesday
Nothing is Wrong with a Little Mystery
I enjoy good murder mysteries or intense "who done it" plots, but I don't like riddles. In philosophy I enjoy friendly debate over ethical issues and the writings of some of the major philosophers, but questions about the existence of chairs and other inanimate objects are a little too abstract for my taste.
I do not always enjoy the process of discovery like my children do when presented with a riddle. I like solid answers; they enjoy the mystery and the process of discovery.
Endless debates over issues show us that we do not have all of the answers. That's okay, a little mystery never hurt anyone.
I'm not alone in this view. French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat, who recently won the Templeton Prize for religion (with a nominal purse of 1 million pounds or $1.42 million U.S.), said that "mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being." His work acknowledges that science cannot fully explain "the nature of being," according to the Associated Press.
This does not mean that science should be thrown out. d'Espagnat emphasized that, if anything, science can tell us what the nature of being is not.
The French scientist is also known for his work during the 1960s through 1980s on the development of quantum physics--another mystery I do not understand. Because of his work, d'Espagnat has surmised that the human mind "is capable of perceiving deeper realities." He is "convinced that those among our contemporaries who believe in a spiritual dimension of existence and live up to it are, when all is said, fully right."
That's very interesting. From what little I do understand, quantum physics is the study of what is going on at a sub-atomic level. According to scientists, what goes on in the sub-atomic world is very different than what goes on at our level. It would seem from his study in this area of physics, d'Espagnat understands that what we can see is very different than what we cannot see. He understands that there are different realities out there. That might help explain why I've always thought that the spiritual world is in another dimension that exists right alongside ours.
The spiritual dimension continuously crosses over into our world, we just can't see it. However, I am not thinking of Casper the Ghost flitting about, or the X-Files, or the simply "paranormal," whatever that is. I am looking at, or for, something much more than that.
Those who are a part of the spiritual dimension can see what goes on in our dimension. Perhaps this is why the writer of Hebrews can write about "a great cloud of witnesses." Maybe this is why we can believe in an invisible God and why we "feel" evidence of his spirit surrounding us at certain times.
Another interesting quote came from Physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) who said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
Indeed. We can also say anyone who is not shocked by the mystery of God has not begun to seek. But just because we don't understand, does not mean that we cannot enjoy both the mystery and the process of discovery. Hmm ... I think I'll ask my kids what riddles they know.
I do not always enjoy the process of discovery like my children do when presented with a riddle. I like solid answers; they enjoy the mystery and the process of discovery.
Endless debates over issues show us that we do not have all of the answers. That's okay, a little mystery never hurt anyone.
I'm not alone in this view. French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat, who recently won the Templeton Prize for religion (with a nominal purse of 1 million pounds or $1.42 million U.S.), said that "mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being." His work acknowledges that science cannot fully explain "the nature of being," according to the Associated Press.
This does not mean that science should be thrown out. d'Espagnat emphasized that, if anything, science can tell us what the nature of being is not.
The French scientist is also known for his work during the 1960s through 1980s on the development of quantum physics--another mystery I do not understand. Because of his work, d'Espagnat has surmised that the human mind "is capable of perceiving deeper realities." He is "convinced that those among our contemporaries who believe in a spiritual dimension of existence and live up to it are, when all is said, fully right."
That's very interesting. From what little I do understand, quantum physics is the study of what is going on at a sub-atomic level. According to scientists, what goes on in the sub-atomic world is very different than what goes on at our level. It would seem from his study in this area of physics, d'Espagnat understands that what we can see is very different than what we cannot see. He understands that there are different realities out there. That might help explain why I've always thought that the spiritual world is in another dimension that exists right alongside ours.
The spiritual dimension continuously crosses over into our world, we just can't see it. However, I am not thinking of Casper the Ghost flitting about, or the X-Files, or the simply "paranormal," whatever that is. I am looking at, or for, something much more than that.
Those who are a part of the spiritual dimension can see what goes on in our dimension. Perhaps this is why the writer of Hebrews can write about "a great cloud of witnesses." Maybe this is why we can believe in an invisible God and why we "feel" evidence of his spirit surrounding us at certain times.
Another interesting quote came from Physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) who said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
Indeed. We can also say anyone who is not shocked by the mystery of God has not begun to seek. But just because we don't understand, does not mean that we cannot enjoy both the mystery and the process of discovery. Hmm ... I think I'll ask my kids what riddles they know.
Thursday
Why stay in church?
The percentage of people who claim to have no religion has grown from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2009, according to the American Religious Identification Survey. Yet surveys also show that the majority of Americans do believe in either God, or a "universal spirit", or a "higher power."
From these findings, it seems like religion has taken a serious hit. My question is this: Do people still believe in God yet do not believe it is necessary to attend church?
According to the survey, about 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not a personal God. About 1.2 percent, since 1990, have become part of non-mainstream religious movements such as Wicca, Scientology and Santeria.
The Washington Post published an article in June, 2008 citing a poll that said 92 percent of Americans believe in God or a "universal spirit."
Compared to the survey, it seems that even God has taken at least a seven percent hit since I do not know how many of the 92 percent from the Post article believe in God or in a "universal spirit."
Since I am a religion writer, trends in religion are interesting to me. I write about them because I hope that they will help area churches gain some perspective for their ministries. From my position, it is easy to analyze the numbers and try to guess why they are increasing or decreasing, but I can only speak about my own experience in the church.
When I was growing up, I had friends who did not attend church regularly even though they believed in God. I, on the other hand, was taught that if someone believed in God they went to church. I did not understand at the time that my friend's family was experiencing angst over what went on inside the church--gossip, hypocrisy, and other sinful behaviors. When this family's feelings subsided, they returned to church. They left again when they saw that nothing had changed. I would not understand this until years later when I started experiencing the same things.
Fast forward many years later and you will find a woman struggling to find a reason to stay in church. Oh, I believed in God. I loved God and still do, but I was struggling with feelings of betrayal, anger and loneliness. I think that the only reason I stayed in the church was because I knew that my children needed it. They were not experiencing the same things and had no idea that I was having these feelings.
So then we must ask why I felt that my children needed it. Can't we still believe in God without going to church? Yes, but it goes deeper than that.
Over the last two years, I have been studying spiritual formation and a huge part of proper formation has to do with the importance of community. We need each other. Like Proverbs says, "Just as iron sharpens iron, friends sharpen the minds of each other," (27: 17, CEV). In other words, we are supposed to be friends to one another in the body of Christ. We are supposed to think with each other and figure out what the Scripture means together. We are supposed keep each other on the straight and narrow. We are supposed to care for each other and work through, or around, our ideological differences.
Is that happening in the church for everyone? I fear that it is not. Why else would people leave? Once someone has experienced true love in the body of Christ they will find no equal--they will not want to leave.
Look at it this way. If I, one who has been in church since the age of two and who knows the language of believers, can experience alienation, what are others feeling who have not been in the church and do not know the language of believers? Why stay when you do not feel accepted?
My theory on this is that no one can change the church from the outside. It's like two siblings picking on each other. This is tolerable for both of them, but if someone from the outside picks on one of the siblings, watch out.
Only brothers and sisters in Christ can truly point out what's wrong in the church and we need each other to make the church what it should be, what Christ meant it to be. If some through gossip or other sinful behavior defy the church's efforts to be unified, then they should be prayed for, confronted in the spirit of love and sometimes asked to leave. This business of not wanting to confront those who are not Christlike hurts the Church deeply.
Often this unwillingness is linked to finances; the church's largest donors can sometimes be the worst offenders. Sometimes these "spiritual wolves" may not have financial power, but they are politically or socially powerful because they have mastered the art of manipulation as a result of their own brokenness. These types are very destructive to not only the church as an organization but also to the church in a larger sense, as the Body of Christ; the Church Universal. Could allowing these behaviors to continue in the church be the reason the unchurched are increasing in number? After prayerful consideration, if the Spirit leads, I believe that it would be better to let these people leave rather than let these spiritual wolves feed upon the sheep of the church.
From these findings, it seems like religion has taken a serious hit. My question is this: Do people still believe in God yet do not believe it is necessary to attend church?
According to the survey, about 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not a personal God. About 1.2 percent, since 1990, have become part of non-mainstream religious movements such as Wicca, Scientology and Santeria.
The Washington Post published an article in June, 2008 citing a poll that said 92 percent of Americans believe in God or a "universal spirit."
Compared to the survey, it seems that even God has taken at least a seven percent hit since I do not know how many of the 92 percent from the Post article believe in God or in a "universal spirit."
Since I am a religion writer, trends in religion are interesting to me. I write about them because I hope that they will help area churches gain some perspective for their ministries. From my position, it is easy to analyze the numbers and try to guess why they are increasing or decreasing, but I can only speak about my own experience in the church.
When I was growing up, I had friends who did not attend church regularly even though they believed in God. I, on the other hand, was taught that if someone believed in God they went to church. I did not understand at the time that my friend's family was experiencing angst over what went on inside the church--gossip, hypocrisy, and other sinful behaviors. When this family's feelings subsided, they returned to church. They left again when they saw that nothing had changed. I would not understand this until years later when I started experiencing the same things.
Fast forward many years later and you will find a woman struggling to find a reason to stay in church. Oh, I believed in God. I loved God and still do, but I was struggling with feelings of betrayal, anger and loneliness. I think that the only reason I stayed in the church was because I knew that my children needed it. They were not experiencing the same things and had no idea that I was having these feelings.
So then we must ask why I felt that my children needed it. Can't we still believe in God without going to church? Yes, but it goes deeper than that.
Over the last two years, I have been studying spiritual formation and a huge part of proper formation has to do with the importance of community. We need each other. Like Proverbs says, "Just as iron sharpens iron, friends sharpen the minds of each other," (27: 17, CEV). In other words, we are supposed to be friends to one another in the body of Christ. We are supposed to think with each other and figure out what the Scripture means together. We are supposed keep each other on the straight and narrow. We are supposed to care for each other and work through, or around, our ideological differences.
Is that happening in the church for everyone? I fear that it is not. Why else would people leave? Once someone has experienced true love in the body of Christ they will find no equal--they will not want to leave.
Look at it this way. If I, one who has been in church since the age of two and who knows the language of believers, can experience alienation, what are others feeling who have not been in the church and do not know the language of believers? Why stay when you do not feel accepted?
My theory on this is that no one can change the church from the outside. It's like two siblings picking on each other. This is tolerable for both of them, but if someone from the outside picks on one of the siblings, watch out.
Only brothers and sisters in Christ can truly point out what's wrong in the church and we need each other to make the church what it should be, what Christ meant it to be. If some through gossip or other sinful behavior defy the church's efforts to be unified, then they should be prayed for, confronted in the spirit of love and sometimes asked to leave. This business of not wanting to confront those who are not Christlike hurts the Church deeply.
Often this unwillingness is linked to finances; the church's largest donors can sometimes be the worst offenders. Sometimes these "spiritual wolves" may not have financial power, but they are politically or socially powerful because they have mastered the art of manipulation as a result of their own brokenness. These types are very destructive to not only the church as an organization but also to the church in a larger sense, as the Body of Christ; the Church Universal. Could allowing these behaviors to continue in the church be the reason the unchurched are increasing in number? After prayerful consideration, if the Spirit leads, I believe that it would be better to let these people leave rather than let these spiritual wolves feed upon the sheep of the church.
Monday
Because of God, we hope
As we are being told in the news, and by reading the newspapers, doom and despair are everywhere. Truthfully, I have heard that so much lately that my mind is becoming numb.
That is until I read a commentary by another religion writer in another newspaper. Basically, the jist of what this writer was saying is that we have no hope. The only thing we can cling to is the fact that this season, too, shall pass. He even claimed that religion offered nothing and dismissed the claim that God was in charge. He said that it was all so depressing.
Frankly, his article depressed me even more than anything the news has had to say.
What are we to do if hope in God is misplaced by hope that a season will pass? We can take courage in the fact that seasons will pass, but what if they don't? What if the discouraging situation we are facing continues for the rest of our lives?
We have to hope in something that is more solid than earthly friendships, the love of family, acts of kindness, heroism and our own integrity. The only thing I know to be more solid than any of these is God. In this, I believe that religion offers us something, because religion is a quest to find God. Where better to find God than in the midst of crisis?
What I find discouraging during this time is the fact that so-called lawmakers and government appointees can get away with evading their taxes and whatever else they are doing. The present administration is full of them. If we as ordinary citizens tried that, we would be audited and perhaps thrown in jail. Instead of owing an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah, as some preachers are fond of saying, we may one day owe an apology to Al Capone and all of the mafia types who have been jailed because they evaded their taxes.
It is the sinfulness and hypocrisy of humankind that discourages me more than anything. Here we are, made in the image of God, and we live like the devil instead.
But then, there is God. I believe that he is watching and, because of the way he has set the world up, people who do wrong will suffer consequences--either in this life or in the life to come. It's not that I wait for this with a spirit of maliciousness, thinking that I have nothing to fear. I just hope that one day God will make things right--and he will.
Of course, we do not have to wait. "Hope and change" are not based on empty political rhetoric. We can change because of God's love. Because of that, there is reason for hope.
That is until I read a commentary by another religion writer in another newspaper. Basically, the jist of what this writer was saying is that we have no hope. The only thing we can cling to is the fact that this season, too, shall pass. He even claimed that religion offered nothing and dismissed the claim that God was in charge. He said that it was all so depressing.
Frankly, his article depressed me even more than anything the news has had to say.
What are we to do if hope in God is misplaced by hope that a season will pass? We can take courage in the fact that seasons will pass, but what if they don't? What if the discouraging situation we are facing continues for the rest of our lives?
We have to hope in something that is more solid than earthly friendships, the love of family, acts of kindness, heroism and our own integrity. The only thing I know to be more solid than any of these is God. In this, I believe that religion offers us something, because religion is a quest to find God. Where better to find God than in the midst of crisis?
What I find discouraging during this time is the fact that so-called lawmakers and government appointees can get away with evading their taxes and whatever else they are doing. The present administration is full of them. If we as ordinary citizens tried that, we would be audited and perhaps thrown in jail. Instead of owing an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah, as some preachers are fond of saying, we may one day owe an apology to Al Capone and all of the mafia types who have been jailed because they evaded their taxes.
It is the sinfulness and hypocrisy of humankind that discourages me more than anything. Here we are, made in the image of God, and we live like the devil instead.
But then, there is God. I believe that he is watching and, because of the way he has set the world up, people who do wrong will suffer consequences--either in this life or in the life to come. It's not that I wait for this with a spirit of maliciousness, thinking that I have nothing to fear. I just hope that one day God will make things right--and he will.
Of course, we do not have to wait. "Hope and change" are not based on empty political rhetoric. We can change because of God's love. Because of that, there is reason for hope.
Wednesday
John, the Fourth Gospel, and Jesus
I am not sure that John wrote the Fourth Gospel. Scholars attribute the gospel to one person who knew Jesus and then to a redactor or two. The information written in the gospel was passed down through oral tradition and then written and revised.
Whoever the source may be, the understanding of Christ is that he is God and that God can be seen in him. Kysar writes in the "Anchor Bible Dictionary" that "the evangelist" strove to describe Christ through a series of metaphors, or "images" to "articulate the unique function and identity of Jesus “(section G1).
For instance, Jesus is the Word, or logos. He is the wisdom and movement behind creation. He is the "self-expression" of God (section G 1a). Jesus is "I am"--the same name that God revealed to Moses. Because he is God, Jesus is the source of everything. He is the bread of life, the living water, the light of the world. The words of Jesus are equated with the very words of God. Accepting Christ's testimony is the same as accepting God's will.
According to Kysar, the Johannine community referred to Jesus as the “Son of God”, “The Son”, “Son of Man”, “only Son”, “only Son of God”. All of these titles express Christ’s deity and the “unique bond of both identity and function between Jesus and God” (Section G 1c). The title “Son of man” is associated with the cross and “Son of God” is associated with “what he is and does” (Section G1c)
From my reading so far, Johannine Christiology is wrapped up in the nature of Christ and his relationship with God the Father. Because Christ is God, he is the source of humanity’s deepest needs; he is our food, our water and our light. Through Jesus we see the Father. Through Jesus we understand what God’s will for humanity is and that God loves us.
Would contemporary Wesleyans be comfortable with Wesley’s views of worldliness?
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world: if any one love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eye and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the desire thereof; but he that doth the will of God abideth for ever.” John Wesley's translation of the 1st Epistle of St. John
According to Wesley’s notes on the New Testament, worldliness is when we seek pleasure in “visible things” instead of God, who is unseen. Anyone who pursues pleasure in what is visible does not love God. Wesley says that what is visible is not permanent and will “pass away.” God, however, is eternal and by loving God we will therefore spend eternity “in the enjoyment of what (we) love forever.”
Wesley wrote that the “desire of the flesh” was related to “taste, smell, or touch” or the “pleasure of the outward senses; “the desire of the eye” meant taking great satisfaction in things. “The pride of life,” or as the NRSV says “the pride in riches” was what we now call materialism. If we have the pride of life we acquire things in order to please ourselves and to get approval from others.
I am quite familiar with Wesley’s definition of worldliness on a personal level. As an American (and I am not blaming it on my culture, I am blaming it on my carnal nature because it responds to my culture), I love to go shopping for clothes. I love to go to Hobby Lobby and purchase new equipment for the crafts I enjoy doing. As a woman I want my house to look a certain way and I want my kids to look nice. Perhaps once in a while these activities are alright. I just don’t want to pursue them to the point where I have to have the latest thing no matter what. I also do not want to clutter my house with unneeded things and waste a bunch of money that could be used to help others.
I think that modern Wesleyans may be uncomfortable with Wesley’s view of worldliness, especially if they are into “keeping up with the Joneses.” Because we are surrounded and inundated with this mindset, it would be difficult to tell if we were involved in this unless we spend some time in contemplation, in fasting or if we went on a mission trip.
In the Church today there is a segment that is very attentive to the poor. They do not seem to be caught up in materialism and they are into social justice. Nazarenes used to be this way more so than they are now. To me it seems like we are more concerned with helping people who live half a world away than we are in helping our neighbors. I think that there needs to be a better balance in this.
Is there a possibility of "being formed by the wrong spirit"?
In I John 3:24 and 4:13, the Spirit provides assurance that we are God’s if we abide in God or “live in him” (Marshall, 202). 1 John also provides other conditions to abiding: believers will 1) “walk as Jesus did;” 2) obey God’s commands; and 3) love one another (Marshall, 202). If we are not living according to any of the aforementioned criteria then we will not sense that assurance. In this case we need to examine ourselves and ask God to show us where our spiritual lives are “in jeopardy” (Marshall, 202).
Some people, however, have an overdeveloped sense of guilt, or perhaps they are just tired or having a bad day and feel that they are not walking with God because of these negative feelings. In this case it is good to weigh our actions against what we are feeling. The writer of 1 John says: “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (1 Jn 3:18-20).
Marshall adds to this by saying “…it is important to recognize that the grounds of Christian assurance and the tests of the reality of Christian experience are multiple: one cannot say that simply because a person professes true belief, or loves his fellow men, or claims to have charismatic experiences, he is a true Christian: it is the combination of these features in a harmonious unity that makes up true Christianity” (219). In other words, we should not depend on fleeting feelings to assess our relationship with God. The significance of the Spirit is that s/he balances everything and assures us despite our emotions.
We can safely surmise that it is possible to be formed by the wrong spirit because right after 3:24 in 4:1, the writer tells us to not believe every spirit. The writer then gives us a test to see whether or not a spirit is from God: every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God (4:3). I guess this is a Christian version of a litmus test.
Three questions
There are three questions that are foundational to spirituality:
“Who am I, and what is the meaning of my life?” is the central question of humanity’s existence, according to Barbara Bowe in her book Biblical Foundations of Spirituality. Bowe affirms that the purpose of humanity’s existence rests in its growing relationship with God and that the Bible provides the answers to our questions about meaning. Bowe states that the Bible tells us that men and women were created in God’s image, that they find meaning in their relationships with each other and that human beings are “touched to our very core” by sin and grace (36). Because of sin, our relationship with God, each other and the earth has changed. Bowe says that the well being of humans deepens as we recognize these truths and begin to practice them.
How does God interact with creation and with us; where can God be found? Bowe states that these answers are largely dependent on our lot in life. If we are rich, we might view God as one who blesses. If we are poor, we cling to God in hope. Bowe asserts that there are many theologies from which we view God, but two—saving and blessing—are dominant and complimentary to each other. Saving theology views God’s “very name and identity … synonymous(ly) with … saving deeds” (47). Blessing theology is the view that God is the primary source of blessing and care (48). Saving theology’s goal is “liberation and freedom” and the goal of blessing theology is “the fullness of life,” a sharing in God’s work. Bowe says that by integrating the two theologies in our spiritual life we view God as one who rescues us from time to time and also as a friend who is with us constantly.
What are we to learn from the biblical stories (66)? In Chapter 5, Bowe shows readers spiritual truths that can be learned from the primary salvific event—the Exodus. From the story of God’s deliverance of the Israelites we learn about the challenges and demands of freedom, trusting in God and about the “intransigence” of evil in our hearts. We also learn about the slow struggle of deliverance.
Bowe presents a meaningful discourse on how people view God and how the basic questions of human existence are answered as we contemplate biblical stories—what it meant to the first readers and what it means to us now. I thought it was interesting that God’s “name” YHWH “preserves God’s utter freedom and namelessness” and how God will not allow himself to become “domesticated” by giving anyone his/her name (60, 61). Yet, when God came to earth in human form, his name Jesus meant the LORD is salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374x.htm). “Through the lens of saving theology, God’s very name and identity are synonymous with these saving deeds.” In this way God becomes more tangible or knowable. God becomes the one who saves and the one who walks beside us.
Bowe and the prophets
Once the people of Israel left Egypt and began their desert wanderings, the wilderness became a time of testing for them and a place to figure out their relationship to God. Barbara Bowe in her book “Biblical Foundations of Spirituality” wrote that it was at Mount Sinai that the Israelites entered into a new relationship with God (69). Through the giving of the Law and the Ten Commandments, God laid out his/her expectations of the chosen people. Bowe says that they were to be a holy people because God was holy. They were to follow the Ten Commandments because these laid out how they were to live with one another. They were to follow certain rituals so that they could remain holy in God’s presence.
We often hear the phrase “chosen people” connected to Israel, and in the Bible we see that the people considered this to be a privilege. However, Bowe states that the people were chosen for responsibility, not privilege (74). They were to live faithfully and show the world who God was. More often than not, however, they lived as though their chosen status exempted them from disaster even though they were not following the God who chose them.
After leaving Egypt, the people had lived in a tribal arrangement without a common leader. As conditions changed in the land, and their enemies became more formidable, the people began wanting a king. Once they were given a king, the nation was no longer a theocracy. Instead, “religion and cultic practice were now the servants of the state” (79).
Monarchy, unfortunately, helped lead the people of Israel away from God. To bring them back, God sent prophets “read the writing on the wall” and speak to the people about the consequences of disobeying God. (83). Bowe writes that the prophets were women and men who dared “to challenge the status quo and who served as essential agents for social change” (84).
The prophets had unshakeable faith and they stood as mediators between God and the people.
The role of prophets declined after the exile, when the people of God began to take the covenant more seriously, but their role still exists today. They are still people who are uncomfortable with the status quo, who hate sin and who encourage people to hope in the midst of trouble.
I felt like Bowe’s chapter on prophets was excellent. Her description helped me understand people who fulfill that role in my life and she also challenged me to take that role more seriously in my own life. Sometimes I notice that I get stirred up about issues and when they are not solved, I let them go and move on. Bowe encouraged me to live in that passion for God’s word and for righteousness, to lift up the cause of the poor and the distressed. She encouraged me to become more of a poet and a dreamer (105), one who can see possibilities rather than resting in the status quo.
The 'wisdom writers'
In her book, “Biblical Foundations of Spirituality”, Barbara Bowe writes about the wisdom writers of the Old Testament, saying that they are part of the “blessing” tradition discussed in an earlier chapter. The blessing tradition pursues wisdom. It is not as concerned about the historical acts of God, but in the “daily ordinariness of life” (110).
“In wisdom’s view,” Kathleen O’Connor wrote, “the struggles and conflicts of daily life are not to be escaped but embraced in full consciousness of their revelatory and healing potential” (110). In other words, we are to “play the hand we are dealt” (124).
The wisdom books include the books of Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Song of Songs, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Psalms. According to Bowe, there are several common features in the books of wisdom. The ones that stand out to me are the way the books explore “universal human concerns,” not just those prominent in Israel, and how humans should behave in the midst of life’s complexities (111). Bowe writes that wisdom avoids the “easy” or “rote” answers about life because life is too complex and God is bigger than “pat” answers (111).
In the chapter called “That Man Jesus,” Bowe discusses the life of Jesus and how each gospel portrays him in a unique way. In John’s story, Jesus is portrayed as “the human face of God” (148). In Luke, Jesus spoke about discipleship, the daily taking up of one’s cross “for the long haul” (142). Luke also writes about Jesus’ selfless giving, which carries on into the book of Acts as the disciples proclaim the message of Jesus through the Spirit’s power (145).
Matthew portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and how he “intensifies the demands of the Torah” (139). Jesus’ call to discipleship in Matthew is all about doing what one hears. Bowe writes that Matthew concentrates on how Christ’s example is lived out in the church.
In Mark, Jesus is a strong, compassionate and holy man (133). He was crucified and “shattered” preconceived notions of the Messiah. Though Jesus is portrayed as powerful, he is crucified. Though he rises from the dead, Jesus leaves earth. His followers have to keep on living; Jesus did not conquer the earth (133 & 134).
Each of these portrayals of Jesus helps add to our understanding of who Christ is. The wisdom books and the chapter about Jesus seem to blend well together because wisdom concerns itself with living a godly life despite life’s complexities and the chapter on Jesus demonstrates how the “human face of God” lived under the mantle of wisdom. While the wisdom books help us explore how we will respond to life’s turmoil, Jesus shows us that he is the answer to life’s problems (146). Following Jesus’ example and depending on the power of his Spirit will help us live the way the books of wisdom tell us to live. It all ties together rather well.
Some thoughts on Bowe's "Biblical Foundations of Spirituality"
In her book “Biblical Foundations of Spirituality,” Barbara Bowe writes about the apostle Paul and brings his writings down to two essential elements: life in the Spirit and life together in the Spirit (163). Ever since Paul’s dramatic meeting with Christ, his life was dedicated to spreading the gospel. According to research, Bowe said that during his ministry, Paul traveled over 3,100 miles—1,800 by land and 1,300 by sea (155). He died a martyr’s death in Rome at the hand of Nero, but his writings take up over half of the New Testament and have influenced millions of people (153). Though an imperfect human, Paul’s example of life in the Spirit and his writings give Christians hope in Jesus and in his power to help us live the Christian life.
Bowe then moves into the book of Revelation and explains a little of the relational history between Christians and Jewish peoples. She writes about the differences in the letters before Revelation and how their differences create a tension that become a debate between the “voices of pragmatism, boundary maintenance and social order … and the voices of prophetic visionaries, boundary breakers and imaginative risk takers …” (168). This tension is between “embracing citizenship in the world” as stated in 1 Peter and “resisting the beast,” as stated in Revelation. Bowe says that keeping this creative tension alive and paying attention to it is essential in our “religious quest” (169).
Bowe’s last chapter addresses the importance of exegesis in the quest for Biblical spirituality. We are to “eat” the word of God, to “ingest slowly” and reflect on what we have eaten (177). The words of Scripture require serious thought and if we are to grow spiritually, Bowe says that exegesis is a must (178). In closing, Bowe explains the elements of a renewed spirituality, which include recognizing the mystery of God and “knowing who we are before God with our finitude and human limitations” (178). She concludes by writing that we will live a life of peace if we integrate the elements of Micah 6:8 into our lives: acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with God (181).
My favorite chapter this week was the last chapter. It is a perfect ending to our course work in Spiritual Formation because Bowe encourages thoughtful exegesis. Through our study of the Johannine books and in our other classes, I have realized how important Bowe’s words are in our own quest for spiritual formation and in our endeavors to guide others in the process. I appreciate Bowe’s words on the creative tension that we all face in our spiritual quest—the tension involving how deeply we are to be involved in the world and in God’s kingdom. If we are to live an effective Christian life in which we help others grow, we must address this tension and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us and strengthen us for the task at hand.
Do women belong in ministry?
Over the last few weeks I have been writing articles about women who serve as pastors in our Valley. This was in response to a number of articles I've seen regarding the opposite view: that women shouldn't serve as pastors.
I must confess that the "shouldn't serve" view makes me a little hot under the collar because the prevailing attitude behind this view is that men are superior and women belong in the kitchen. At church women should only serve on the missions board and with children. Oh yeah, and keep the coffee coming at the potlucks, dearie!
But what about women who are not gifted in working with children. What about those women who enjoy studying and teaching adults? Where do they fit in the church?
Fortunately, there are enough denominations that accept women as ministers and I was fortunate enough to interview five such women. Each woman I interviewed is outstanding in her own right and takes the call of God in her life seriously. These women are blessings to their congregations and to our community.
I know that many people have already dismissed what I have said in this column as unscriptural, but that is not true. I have studied the issue and have talked to women who are involved in ministry. My conclusion is that any male preacher worth his salt will tell his congregation not to base an entire opinion, philosophy or theology on one or two Scriptures.
One must also remember that back in the time that Paul - presuming that it was in fact Paul of Tarsus - was writing, most women were not educated. It would have been improper for an uneducated woman to teach an educated man (Hmm...I wonder if that works the other way around?). And, in Titus, Paul was writing to a specific church that was experiencing specific problems. In today's world, it would have probably been one of those church-killing arguments over the color of the carpet in the sanctuary.
As John Wesley advocated each Scripture should be examined in light of the context of what the entire Bible says. With this in mind we can see Paul's admonition for women to be silent in church for what it is, situational. In Romans, Paul referred to Phoebe who was deacon and had a position in authority over men. Priscilla was a house church leader (1 Cor. 16:19) and don't forget that women were the first to carry the news about Jesus' resurrection. There are other women I could mention, but it would take too much space. Suffice it to say that Jesus' attitude toward women did not relegate them to second class status, and there is plenty of Scriptural support for that statement.
Before putting a woman down for serving God, think about the church. Most churches would have closed their doors long age if women hadn't filled all of the various positions that men didn't want or had vacated. If you don't believe me, take a look around your church next Sunday and see who does what.
Balance is the thing that is needed. In writing this column, I am not calling for discrimination against men. People should be allowed to use the gifts given to them by the Spirit inside the church and outside the church. The church is the one place that should be perfect for this.
Peter Marshall, the famous Scottish preacher who served as the chaplain for the U.S. Senate once said that Christianity had done more for the liberation of women than any other religion. Is what he said true today?
Washing feet: the task of every Christian
I've been thinking a lot about the role of a Christian over the last few years. Frankly, I've been confused by the whirl of activities in churches and the mentality of staying within the four walls of the church and inviting people in so that they can "meet Jesus."
During the last few months, and especially in my last class on Johannine theology, the role is becoming more clear. Christians are supposed to wash feet.
With Easter approaching, some may have already perused the story in John 13 where Jesus washes his disciples' feet. In Palestine during the first century when everyone wore sandals, washing feet was the most distasteful job in the house. Because it was a necessary part of hospitality, the task was given to the lowest ranking servant. It was certainly not a job for a teacher of Jesus' status, yet Jesus did it anyway. In that society and time, it was a very significant sign of humility and in the case of Jesus serving as foot washer, love.
When Jesus came to Peter, the disciple developed a case of foot-in-mouth disease, telling his master that he would never allow him to wash his feet. Jesus responded by telling Peter that until he washed the feet of his disciple, Peter could have no part in him. To Peter's credit, he quickly complied.
Since this episode, Christians have debated whether or not foot washing should be considered one of the sacraments. Many churches do have a foot washing ceremony; this is the basis for Maundy Thursday, just before Easter. All that aside, most of my class agreed that foot washing is more symbolic than literal. So then, asked our professor, what are some contemporary examples of washing feet?
For me, there is no better contemporary analogy to washing feet than taking care of someone who is incapacitated either due to injury, age, or because of the approach of death. There are some tasks that are extremely distasteful, but which must be accomplished for the individual’s health and dignity. It does not take much imagination to think of what some of these tasks might be, but doing these things for someone is the ultimate sign of love.
And like any labor of love, the act itself changes the one performing it.
In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Francis J. Moloney said that foot washing was a “symbolic action of the limitless love for Jesus' own." Jesus even did this for Judas, who betrayed him that very night. A writer named Thomas associated foot washing with the forgiveness of sins. In a contemporary setting, this might play out in the act of taking care of someone, like an elderly parent, who has abused the caregiver in some way. If there is animosity between the patient and the caregiver, the acts of love shown by the caregiver may soften the hearts of both sides resulting in forgiveness, compassion and spiritual healing.
Moloney also writes that foot washing points to death. Through this act, Jesus was presenting a “self-gift." Now Jesus was not selfish, but I sure am. Whenever I do something that is distasteful to me, yet necessary for someone else, a part of me dies. This act of compassion becomes part of the death of my inner selfishness. It then becomes a beautiful act in which God is glorified.
And so, I think that we Christians must think of how we can "wash the feet" of people in this community who will never darken a church door. What can we do for them? How can we bring them to Christ outside of the four walls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)