my good deeds are like a tampon...

In this week's lectionary readings we find a prayer from Isaiah 64.  The tide has turned in Isaiah's (or second Isaiah's) thoughts and no more are there promises of destruction... now there are promises of salvation and pleas for God to act.

"If only you would tear open the heavens and come down!" Isaiah cries. 

It is a lament, for Isaiah looks at himself and at his people and knows why God is not answering.  The people have sinned and turned their backs.  So God is waiting. 

As I read this prayer today with my lectionary group, I was unprepared for the next line in the scripture.  As I remember the translation there was always something about filthy rags... but as I read along in my new Common English Bible, the verse leaped off the page:

"We have all become like the unclean; all our righteous deeds are like a menstrual rag."

To be unclean - ritually unclean - means that a person is temporarily unsuited to take part in holy activities like prayer, sacrifice, fasting, etc.  Temporary is the key word there.  A ritual impurity, such as that caused by contact with bodily fluids or menstruation, are not permanent states of being. 

In order to become clean again... a ritual washing is required.  Sometimes just the hands, sometimes full emersion.  But washing none the less.

When Isaiah uses this concept in the passage, he is connecting the hearts of the people to their worship.  He is connecting a physical reality to a spiritual one.  Because of their sins, they have defiled themselves.  God doesn't want them in the presence of the divine right now.  Like it will later say in Malachai 1:10 -

"Who among you will shut

the doors of the temple^c

so that you don’t burn something

on my altar in vain?

I take no delight in you,

says the LORD of heavenly forces.

I won’t accept a grain offering

from your hand."

When our lives are filled with sin, good deeds mean nothing. They can't earn us a place in God's heart.  In fact, the hypocrisy of them only serves to anger our Lord more, because they cover up the truth... that we need to be washed clean. 

That we need to be transformed from the inside out.

That we need our Holy Potter to take our misshapen clay and to form us once again. 

Come, Holy God, tear open the heavens and wash us clean.

fact checking in an age of T.M.I.

T. M. I.

Too Much Information.

I'm not entirely sure this was ever envisioned by the framers of the first amendment when freedom to the press and freedom of speech were created. I'm not sure it was envisioned by the inventors of the internet, or cable tv, or email.

But we are inundated constantly with information. And depending on which sources we use for our information we read completely different "facts." Even within one publication we can have radically different portrayals of the truth. Or opinion - which has begun to substitute just fine for truth these days.

As a pastor, I face this when I have congregants reading different translations of scripture from vastly different sources and theological frameworks. While it provides and opportunity to talk about why these interpretations might be different, do we ever reach back and find out what the truth of the text is? Is there Truth to be found? or is it all a matter of interpretation?

Certainly this isn't a new problem. That's why throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition there have always been schools of thought that argued with one another. There is a reason that Jesus had to interact with Pharisees and Sadducees and Zealots and Essenes. They were all holding on to different pieces of the truth, and holding on to them so fast that they became the Truth for each.

We do this in the church. We do this in politics. We do this in schools. We do this everywhere. Because the idea that we can't fully grasp the Truth - that it is something that is bigger than us, is scary. We want black and white - truth and falsehood, good guys and bad guys. The in-between stuff is a mess and we don't want to live there.

In conversations with fellow pastors, we have discussed anecdotaly that folks tend to like morality sermons better than grace sermons. Because in morality and justification messages, the choice is clear - do this, don't do that. When we talk about love and forgiveness and grace, suddenly we are in the gray area... showing love to a murderer? having compassion for a drug addict? Witnessing someone transform their lives? it's messy, and hard and challenging, and we would much rather label people as good or bad. Even labeling ourselves as good or bad is easier than accepting messy grace.

Photo by:  memory_collector

Whether we like it or not, our world has changed.  Modernity is a thing of the past.  The world we live in is not black and white. Truth is not either/or. Reality is dirty and messy and complicated. More than one thing can be true at the same time. And we still haven't quite learned how to have conversation, how to hold one another accountable, how to make our way forward in the midst of postmodern thought.

Sometimes though, our overabundance of information can be sifted through.  Instead of simply letting the information out there all be valid, we can do the hard work of distilling what is worth keeping and what should be tossed out.

I'm becoming increasingly grateful for a simple little website called snopes.com. They help sift through lots of information and help to clear up some of the mis-information out there. But they do so in a way that realizes that there is fact and fiction out there. They are willing to say that parts are true and parts aren't. They show you which is which. They show which items are a matter of interpretation and opinion. They back stuff up with resources. They are indespensible!!!!

I have gotten into the habit recently of running any email forward I have recieved through snopes.com - just to see what's out there.

Recently, it was an email forward with pictures from the attack on Pearl Harbor reportedly taken by someone on Dec. 7, 1941.  The email claimed that the film strip was only just recovered preserved from his "brownie camera" recently.

Snopes let me know: the pictures are real, the story is not. There was no way one person could have taken all of those pictures from so many different angles, plus, they are all navy archives photos and have been for quite some time.

What I have learned is that it is good to have some healthy skepticism in the face of information these days.  Do a little bit of legwork.  Ask yourself if it is believable.  Check with a source that you trust.  Be willing to dissect information to be able to find out what is propaganda and what is fact and what is opinion and what is just plain old story.  Sometimes it's all wrapped up in the same piece of information - whether it is a bible devotion or an email forward or a segment on your favorite news program. 

The world out there is a jumble of information.  Be smart.  Be informed.  Don't take anything at face value.

what we are saved from matters - or - what if Rob Bell has a point?

I'm just a small voice, but I have a two cents to add to the pot on this whole "Rob Bell Universalism" controversy.  

Before his book is even out, folks are making all kinds of assumptions about what it says.  And there are probably enough indicators in the youtube preview of "Love Wins" that you can say a whole lot.

But I want to back the question up a little bit.

What I think Bell is pointing out is that soteriology matters.  What we believe we are saved from is important.  Who is saving us means something.  What that process of redemption entails determines a whole lot about how we treat other people and how we live our lives.

Soteriology matters.

If God has already condemned all of us to a place called Hell because of the actions of a man and a women in a garden thousands of years ago... and then God saves us from that condemnation... we might think and act and worship a certain way.

If, however, our actions then and our continued actions now are themselves "hell-making"... if we are creating the conditions of hell each and every time we hurt one another through our action and inaction and if we dishonor our relationship with our Lord by turning towards the darkness rather than the light... then salvation looks different.  Then, maybe Christ saves us from ourselves... and then the Spirit empowers and sanctifies us to live the way God intended.

There are subtle differences in those two concepts (and they are only two among many!), but the differences are important.

Historically we have at least three major ways of understanding what Christ does for us:  Christus Victor, Substitutionary Atonement, and the Moral Example theories of Abelard. All three have a basis in scripture.  All three say something very different about what is wrong with humanity, about what hell looks like, and about how salvation is imparted into our personal and corporate lives.

Last summer, my congregation and I explored these various understandings of atonement and found all three of them interwoven in the book of Hebrews.  Christ is the priest who lays down his life as the final and perfect sacrifice.  Christ is the prophet who calls us to a different way of life.  Christ is the king who triumphs over the lesser kings of this world and conquers for us.

It gets complicated... but it matters.  Where we end up on these questions of salvation change how we interact with our brothers and sisters in this world. It changes our relationship with the one who does the saving.

And, I might also add, our inability to fully understand and agree about salvation ultimately says more about us than it does about God.

As I read the "good book" from beginning to end... as I look at the scope and span of the scriptures... no matter how we fail and get it wrong, no matter how strong the forces for darkness are in this world - in the end, love does win.

That is the firm hope that I stand on. 

If God doesn't win... if love and life and light don't have the final say, then all is for naught.

I have many good friends who are reformed theologians of the Calvinist flavor.  And I understand their predilection towards preserving the sovereignty of God Almighty. 

But what I want to know is why can't that preservation of God's sovereignty also leave space for the hope that God's power is so great that it can transform and redeem everything?

Jurgen Moltmann once said in regards to claims he might be a universalist:

I'm not a Universalist because there are some people I don’t want to see again – but God created them and would certainly like to see them again.  Universalism is not only to speak about all human beings, but to speak about the universe, the stars and the moon and the sun and the whole cosmos.

If I were to summarize Moltmann's statement it would go: I'm not a Universalist, but God might be.

Moltmann reminds us that at the end of the day, this is God's story... not ours.  Who are we to tell God who can be saved and who cannot?  Who are we to limit the story of salvation to humans or a sharp distinction between a place called heaven and a place called hell? 

When I read Revelation and Isaiah and whole host of other scriptures... I find a story in which not only people, but the whole creation groans for salvation. I am invited into a story of recreation, of redemption, a story where a new heaven and a new earth are realized and where God dwells among us.  And the way I read the story... love does win. 

How we get there matters... but what really matters that the one who made us wants to redeem us... and has the power to do so.

celebrations and transitions

This Sunday is when we celebrate the Transfiguration and after five weeks of exploration on the Lord's Prayer - I am more than ready for something new in worship.

I have been thinking a lot about what the Transfiguration symbolizes for the life of the church. Besides simply being a remembrance of the event witnessed by the disciples, besides being an affirmation that the law and the prophets were fully behind the ministry of the Son of God, the Transfiguration comes at an important juncture in Mark and in important juncture in the church year.

In Mark, Jesus is setting his face towards Jerusalem. Life as it was for the disciples would never be the same. And in many ways, we too are setting our faces towards Jerusalem as we enter the season of Lent.

But I think that the Transfiguration also serves as a transition point in which we need to remember where we have been and let that be seen in the light of God's glory, but then set it behind us and move forward. The disciples got the glory part, but they wanted to enshrine the moment, build tabernacles, and stay in that moment. We need to take a moment to sit in the glory of what we have accomplished, but then let it go and realize that our journey has only just begun.

So that idea of celebrating a moment and then moving on is really in the back of my mind.

In our congregation, we have a lot to celebrate. We just had a hugely successful dinner to raise money for our youth ministry. We gave money to many valuable missions in the last year. We increased our involvement in worship and other activities. And the thing that amazed me, we paid our apportionments 100% for the first time in years.

But we can't say - oh, well, we accomplished that, look how great we were, and be done. We have to keep working. We have to keep seeing what changes need to be made. We have to keep following the guidance of the spirit. And that means coming down off of the mountain top, rolling up our sleeves, and getting to work.

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

This morning one of our small groups met and I started Joyce Rupp's "The Cup of Our Lives" with them. It thought it went really well! I'm also now up to 5 youth and a male chaperone besides myself who are able to go on our youth mission trip this summer. Which is fantastic!

I ran some errands - including buying some good nutritious food to stock the fridge with, and then sat down for lunch with my computer. And came across this article:

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?
By MOLLY WORTHEN
Published: January 11, 2009
The Seattle minister Mark Driscoll is out to transform American evangelicalism with his macho conception of Christ and neo-Calvinist belief in the total depravity of man.

I know I said that I would be commenting on "The Shack" soon... and I hope to... but for some reason I stumbled across this today and just sat there with my jaw dropped staring at the screen.

I didn't know anything about this church before I read the article and there are some things about how it is portrayed that make my blood boil and there are other things that really resonate with me. And so I'm going to talk about them in no particular order.

First of all, the Calvinist theology. It's not me. I'm a die-hard Methodist. And while there may only be a hair's breadth between Calvinism and Methodism, I would say that it's a mighty thick hair. And to be fair to Calvin, this New Calvinism takes his attempt to hang on to the sovereignty of God and just runs with the unintended implications much more than Calvin ever would have. There is a determinism there that is extremely uncomfortable for me. Not because I'm a "limp-wristed liberal," but because I want to leave room for God to do what God wants - and that includes redeeming the irredeemable.

Secondly, along with the theology comes an interpretation of the bible that is ironically more refreshing that traditional conservative literal evangelical spin... because it takes seriously the New Testament messsage that prohibitions against things like drinking and dancing just don't jive with what Jesus tried to teach... that attempting to live righteously by the law is to live like a Pharisee. But, the interpretative framework doesn't leave any room for the contextual explanations of Paul's comments on the genders or leave room for the call of God to teach and preach to come to women. And I have a huge problem with that since I am a woman and have experienced that call. (Perhaps this is where I stick in a not so subtle comment about Wesleyan theology and the quadralateral of biblical interpretation: scripture, tradition, reason and experience.)

Third, and this is related to the gender discussion, Driscoll wants to basically save Jesus from the theology that has emasculated him. I want to both agree and disagree here. There is a lot within theology that does paint Jesus as the soft and gentle one who loves us. And there are some interpretations of the crucifixion that want to see pacifism as weak, as Christ's refusal to fight back or stand up for himself as a feminine way of being (Not my interpretation). BUT, why are feminine attributes so negative in Driscoll's eyes? Why can't Jesus embrace both the traditionally masculine and feminine aspects of humanity? And the whole argument supposes that Christ's form of resistance to power... his refusal to give in AND his willingness to die for sinners... is what has made Christ weak, or in the words of the article:

has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”

On the contrary, the true power of Christ in my theology is described in terms of kenosis - of emptying himself - of pouring out himself for others. In doing so, he fully took on human existence and redeemed it, once and for all. He gave up everything in order that none would have to be condemned to hell. But, there is still a choice involved. Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, continues to reach out to us but it is up to us whether or not we respond. That's not weak. That is what love and relationship look like.

Fourth, I love the way that the church meets people where they are and believe that God is found everywhere within the culture. I can totally relate to the description of the people as:

cultural activists who play in rock bands and care about the arts, living out a long Reformed tradition that asserts Christ’s mandate over every corner of creation

I have no complaint here and applaud their ability not only to reach out to those who would be uncomfortable in a mainline church, but also to challenge them to live differently. In the words of Anne Lamott (or someone else if it came before her) "God loves you just the way you are, and loves you too much to let you stay that way."

Fifth, the idea that to question authority is to sin. OMG. seriously. That paragraph in the article about made me scream. To start off with, since Calvinism is a REFORMED tradtion... there was some questioning of authority somewhere along the way. That being said, I have no tolerance for authoritarianism. (haha, i made a joke) Questioning is what makes us human, it is the gift of the Holy Spirit that allows the body of Christ to discern what is the will of God. I must admit here that Mr. Wesley himself could be fairly authoritarian in his own day, and he made some bad choices as a result of which (see his love life in Georgia for example). But to shun elders within the church because they opposed the new organizational structure? Are you serious? I guess that's a long way from the idea of Christian conferencing that became a part of the Wesleyan tradition... Or maybe I'm just being limp-wristed again. GAH!

being true to your beliefs...

This morning I was approached by a congregation member who wanted to invite me to join him for a gathering of the Methodist Laity Reform Movement. This is a group within our conference that wants to promote a more conservative reading of the social principles but also is looking for more grassroots reform of the whole conference system. There are some things in their agenda and principles I can agree with, but not everything - particularly the views on homosexuality. While I hate to say that is the only issue that would keep me away from it, the fact that half of their "issues" on the website were regarding whether gays and lesbians can be ordained or members or on Supreme Court rulings regarding homosexuality, I have to take a step back.

I have not yet stood up and shared my opinions/beliefs on the subject. I do have a Human Rights Coalition equality sticker in my office and a number of books in my marriage and relationship counseling section - if anyone is interested in looking that would announce where I stand on the issue.

I guess the question I have for other pastors is how do you start to broach the subject? Do you wait until asked specifically, or in the case of this group, should I have said up front that was the reason I wasn't interested? I did say that there are many reform movements and caucuses in our annual conference and that it wasn't one I was interested in participating in, but I left it at that.

I want to be true to myself, but I also want to be pastoral and help the congregation wrestle together with this issue. It relates to one of my last posts regarding truth and perception. I have a position on the issues that I can't impose as fact upon others. I need to listen to them, as much as they need to listen to me. And we all need to open up space for the Holy Spirit to guide us.

And it all has to do with understandings of scripture. Ironically, my mom called me just yesterday. She said that a co-worker knew that I was a pastor and so he came up to her and asked if I had read 1 Timothy 2. She didn't really know what he was referring to (and didn't stop to check), but passed along the information to me. One of the reasons that we (or many of us) don't take verses 11-15 seriously today is because 1) we have been revealed other truths by the Holy Spirit... ie: we have witnessed women's ability to lead and teach men and 2)we are able to contextualize that passage, look at where and why it was said and we also judge it against other scriptural passages.

So, i guess I'm just waiting to have this conversation and wondering if i should be the one to initiate it.

lusting whores in Ezekiel...

Well. I've been going to a bible study that meets at the church... not necessarily a bible study really... they gather to read the bible together, out loud, and have snacks.

Yesterday morning, Ezekiel 23 happened to be where we were (they are reading straight through... I think they might have started with Jeremiah)... and holy cow! I have never read that chapter before... and I don't think that any of them had either! The chapter talks about two sisters who are whores... an analogy for the cities of Jerusalem and Samaria... but if you aren't reading with a careful enough eye or a critical enough spirit, you don't quite get that right away. I'm not quite sure how they would have preceeded through that chapter without me! And while I tried really hard this morning to keep quiet... mostly so I could observe what normally happens in this group... this chapter was just too difficult!

One thing that I have learned from this group however... well, from the church members in general... is that I need to learn how to love the Bible. I think there is a book by Peter Gomes - The Good Book - and I'm going to try to read it sometime soon. I realized that when I go to the bible to read it, I'm looking for the themes, I'm looking for the historical connections, I'm looking at it academically and critically, thinking of it most of the time as a message for people a long time ago and hoping that with the Holy Spirit's help that something might apply to my life today. The people I have met in my congregation just love to read the bible. One homebound member actually said that she doesn't really understand the bible, it gets all confusing, she just loves to read the words. She said - all of that figuring the message out - that's not for us lay people. And that mindset really confuses me! There is a sort of simpleness too it and part of me wants to challenge them and teach them to learn from the depths of the text. That kind of simple-minded reading of the bible leads to a lot of proof-texting and quoting verses without paying attention to the context. On the otherhand, this group is so passionate about reading the word of God, whether they understand it or not, that they gather each week to read it aloud to one another.

As I thought about it today, I wonder if a lectio divina method would work well with this group. I think that it might add just a little bit of structure to their reading and allow them to focus on smaller isolate chunks and really absorb them deeply. It would give them a chance to lift up phrases that speak to them and help them to look more closely at what is going on.